ML20032B002
| ML20032B002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8111040260 | |
| Download: ML20032B002 (95) | |
Text
-=-
~ - -
~... -. - -
u NCCIZAR RIGUI.ATORY COMMISSICN 0' D C
ATOMI SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C
l In.he Matter of:
THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.,
and DOCKET NO. 50-358-OL WILLIAM H.
ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION j
bl V
OA"T: October 30, 1981 PAGzs:
4772 - 4865 l
Cincinnati, Ohio A;;
p
( afg~G 1 qw s
3 ye
.3 t
s C
4 REPORMG 4
O
_HDERSOX M
400 Virp..ia Ave., 5.W. Wa*M 79.:n, 2.
C.
20024 I O V
Talachene: (202) 554-2245 1
S111040260 811030 l
PDR ADOCK 05000358 T
i 4772 O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR FOGULATORY COMMISSION O
In the matter of:
THE CINCINNATI GAS &
ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
- Docket No.52-358 and WILLIAM H.
ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION Friday, October 30, 1981 United States Post Office and Courthouse Room 607 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Prehearing conference in the above-entit. led matter convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE:
John H. Frye, III, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. M. Stanley Livingston Atomic Safety and Licensing Board O
ACE REPORTING, INC.
216 E. 9th St e Barnster House / 6tfi Froor CINCINNATI. CHIO 45202 TELEPHONE: AREA CODE 513 241 3200 i
l l
I t
~. _ _. _. -., _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
4772-A 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On behald of the Applicancs:
3 Messrs. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
O-Conner and Moore 4
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006 5
and Jerome A. Vennemann, Esq.
6 In-House Counsel Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company 7
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
8 Mr. Charles A. Barth, Esq.
9 and Mrs. Janice E. Moore 10 Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- j Washington, D.C. 20555 12 On behalf of Dr. Fankhauser
()
13 J hn D. Woliver, Esq.
Legal Aid Society g
Clermont County Office PO Box 47, 550 Kilgore Street 15 On behalf of the Commonwealth if Kentucky:
16 l
David K. Martin, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 18 Capital Building Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 I9 On behalf of the Miami Valley Project:
20 James li. Feldman, Jr., Esq.
Fif th Floor Barrister House 21 216 East Ninth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
()
22 On behalf of the 3tnmer Area Citizens of Ohio and Kentucky:
23 l
Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.
24 i ()
Dennison and Eckerson 200 Main Street
"'t""ia, Ohio 15102 ACE REPORUNG. INC.
CfMCBNN Afl. OMIO
,,_y r~,
,.--,nn.
, - +. - -., -
i 4772-B' On behalf of the Citizenry of Mentor:
2 Mr. Donald Reder 3
Route 2 Box 270 O-California, Kentucky 41007 4
On behalf of the County of Clermont:
S Laurence R. Pisse, Esq.
6 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Clermont County, Ohio 7
462 East Main Street Batavia, Ohio 45103 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 l
20 21 (2) 22 23 l
()
ACE REPORMNG. INC.
CINCINN Aff. OMIO
1 PROCEEDINGS 4773 2
JUDGE FRYE:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
S 3
We had lef t hanging yesterday afternoon when we adjourned the (J
4 question of Dr. Fankhauser's contention -- there are many 5
portions of Dr. Fankhauser's Contention 2, and we have conferred 6
on that.
7 In light of Mr. Barth's objection and in light 8
of the discussions that we had yesterday on Contention 2, we 9
feel that it robably best to leave it as it is with no 10 further opportunity to specify.
11 This would, of course, leave you free to specify 12 on I believe it is Contention 3 that we discussed yesterday.
13 That would mean that Mr. Conner could file his 14 motion for summary disposition if he so sees fit.
Otherwise, 15 we will go to hearing on that matter.
16 MR. CONNER:
We will certainly file the motion 17 and hopefully very quickly, although I repeat we still do not 18 know what some of it means.
19 JUDGE HOOPER:
This is just --
20 MR.,. CONNER :
I beg your pardon?
21 JUDGE HOOPER:
We are talking about just 2 now,
('T 22 not 4?
\\J 23 MR. CONNER:
Right.
Actua. f we are talking 24 about 2-B, C and F and G, I understand.
Yes.
ACE REPORUNG. lNC.
CINCINN Afl. ONeo m
-...,m_....,__,._r.
1 Is B in to the extent of involving citizenry 4774 2
as distinguished from monitoring?
3 JUDGE FRYE:
I do not believe that.
I believe 4
B was recalled.
5 MR. WOLIVER:
That is correct.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
We have also executed the settle-7 ment agreement between the City and Cincinnati Gas & Electric, 8
and I want to say that while there was only space provided for 9
me to sign it, and I have sianed it, that all three of us con-10 cur-ad that it should be executed, and I have also signed the 11 order which was submitted which I will take back and have filed 12 and served.
()
So, Mr. Conner, do you want me to keep one of 13 1.1 these and give you two?
15 MR. CONNER:
I would appreciate that.
We will 16 see that the City gets one of the copies.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
18 MR. CONNER:
Thank you.
19 JUDGE FRYE:
At this point, it seems to me that 20 it would be approp,riate for us to take a look at Clermont County 21 and City of Mentor contentions which were filed yesterday and 22 get the reactions of the applicant and staff to those conten-tions.
23 Mr. Conner, do you want to lead off?
O 24 ACE REPORMNG. lNC.
CINCINN AN. OD*IO
{]}
1 MR. CONNER:
Certainly, unless you want to hear 4775 2
from the proponent first.
{}
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I thought since we have got 4
the contention that we would let you and Mr. Barth address them 5
and then give the proponents an opportunity to respond.
6 MR. FISSE:
They were submitted in response to y
the board's order of October 9, so whether you want to char-8 acterize them as contentions or whatever, it was submir'ed in 9
furtherance of the detailing the subject upon which we to intend --
11 JUDGE FRYr:
Constitutes the specific concerns 12 of Clermont County and the items that you foresee that you 13 might want to pursue?
i 14 MR. FISSE:
Correct.
15 MR. CONNER:
If the bcard please, I think we.can 16 state our position rather succinctly and as a background 17 master, we had a conference call on 10/27.
Mr. Fisse partici-l 18 pated, and at that time 7 understood'he intended to submit 19 rather specific items.
20 In further background information, we have been 21 working with the Clermont County officials for more than a year 22 and a half prior to the present.
We thought that we were
()
23 working with responsible government spokesmen.
24 Now, we are in some doubt as to who the
()
l
.c
.oonna. iuc.
CINCINN4?l, OMIO
(v~)
1 spokesman for Clermont Count is on various matters.
This is 4776 2
giving us some problems.
(}
3 We thought we had reached agreement except for a 4
few items and had written to Clermont County on October 22, 1981 5
115. ing some additional equipment the county wanted and much of 6
which we agreed to.
7 The point is that we had only 11 items that had 8
not (.;en agreed to in terms of equipment that CG&E was going to
/
provide to the county.
10 On the other hand, there are roughly eight pages 11 of equipment that the company has agreed to provide to the 12 county for the purposes of the emergency planning.
The fact 13 remains that of the 11 remaining things that the county wanted, l
l 14 we agreed to most.
15 I mean, for example, the county wanted the first 16 item, 1350 additional TLD chips instead of the 350 we were 17 going to give them.
18 The fact is that such an accident as contem-19 plated here certainly there is a slim possibility of occurrence, 20 and it is understood t'.at in the event there were such an acci-21 dent, the Federal Emergency Plan people, presently DOE, would
(])
22 come in and have all the TLD chips one would ever need, but to 23 have a surplus of them sitting around unused to us was wrong.
(~)
24 That sort of illustrates the other -- the attitude U
1 ACE REPORMNG. tNC CINC MNATO,ONeo L
()
I on the 11 other items.
The last two items, of course, they want 4777 2
about a $25,000 vehicle and another, either a GMC blazer or
(}
3 Ford Bronco, in addition to, of course, the equipment that the 4
County Emergency Planning people already have.
5 We say we will provide them with one vehicle, 6
but this was one of the sticky points.
For some reason, this 7
is needed -- by the county this is -- that this is what it must 8
have.
9 My point is that we had reached this stage of 10 negotiation where there were almost very few items left so this 11 letter was sent to, October 22, in our view, culminating a year 12 and a half of negotiation.
O
{
But we are nonetheless to find that obviously 13 14 this document that Mr. Fisse handed up yesterday when the 15 hearing started of some ten ;. ages had obviously been in prepara-16 tion for some time and we really don't understand what the 17 position of the county now is.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Well, Mr. Fisse indicates in his i
19 motion and in the documents attached to his motion that negotia-
[
20 tions are ongoing.'
21 I would hope that they would continue and that
()
22 you might be able to successfully resolve these.
23 MR. CONNER:
Well, this is what I was leading j ()
24 into.
I
~
ACE REPORW.w. I N C.
CtNCINNAT Q v0 j
i
~
l JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
4778 2
MR. CONNER:
We have, and if the board would like 3
a copy of this letter, we would be glad to hand it up for what-4 ever purpose.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
I do not think we need it at this 6
point.
If we can be of assistance in furthering the negotia-7 tions, we stand ready to do that at any time.
8 MR. CONNER:
You are anticipating my point.
9 The scope of what Mr. Fisse filed yesterday is immense in the 10 implications.
11 It is certainly not specific.
It is something 12 that I think goes far beyond the actual state of the record and 13 the situatior with Clermont County.
14 We object, for the record, to the various conten-d 15 tions or whatever, Items 1 through 12, as failing far short of 16 the specificity required for any participant in the proceeding.
17 The mere fact that Clermont County has come in la under 2.71C does not relieve it from the responsibility to 19 specify what it is actually concerned with in a hearing, and 20 I believe this hascbeen held in other cases, such as River 21 Bend.
22 Moreover, the board in its order of October 9 23 directed Clermont County to indicate in detail at this pre-24 hearing conference what they intended to participate in, but ACE REPORMNG. lNC.
CINCINNaft, OseeO
I here we have the old, the emergency plan is inadequate because 4779 2
and go down the table of contents.
3 So we believe that this document should be dis-4 missed out of hand and that perhaps following what the chairman 5
or the board ordered yesterday with respect to the two 6
intervenor parties, to give them a short time, a very short 7
time, to say what they are talking about.
8 We would also ask this board as following the 9
Commission's policy statement to direct -- I don't know how to 10 do it -- if I knew who the person was, I would say so -- to 11 get a recponsible spokesman for Clermont County to meet with us 12 so we can see what actually is the problem.
(m
(>
13 Our problem has been of having to talk to dif-14 ferent people at different times and quite frankly we are not 15 quite sure who we are dealing with.
16 I wish I knew how to be more specific.
The l
17 county government is under a three-member board of commissioners i
18 and I guess they speak in a collegial way, and we tried to meet 19 with the sheriff.
20 We met with the sheriff.
We met with all of them,
21 I think.
Different people say different things about what other 22 people want.
We are quite confused.
23 There is a prcblem whether the sheriff really 24 wants a new recording machine or not.
It depends on who you O. s I
ACE REPORDNG. INC.
CINCINNaf t. OMIO l
I
(}
talk to.
4780 2
So we would ask the board to lend its good
/
3 offices to suggest a day or a time when we could meet with all 4
of the spokesmen for Clermont County in an effort to resolve 5
this, because certainly we will provide equipment needed to 6
concluct a real emergency plan.
7 However, our responsibilities to the stockholders 8
and our responsibilities under state law prohibit us from 9
Christmas presents.
10 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Barth, do you have any comment?
11 MR. BARTH:
I do, your Honor.
Mr. Conner laid 12 a little bit of short background.
In response to the board's 13 order, the staff scheduled a joint telephone conference in which 14 Clermont County was included last Tuesday and in that telephone 15 conference, we drew attention to the last paragraph on page 4 16 of your order of October 9 in which you state that the board 17 directs these participants, Clermont Countsf, to indicate in 18 detail what the prebearing conference subject or subjects upon 19 which they intend to participate are and the scope of such 20 participation.
21 Clermont County was a party to the Tuesday
(}
22 telephone conversation, and Mr. Fisse informed me and the other 23 parties that he was preparing a specific list of equipment
[}
24 which was necessary in order for Clermont County to implement ACE REPORDNG. INC.
CtNCIN86 Aft. OMBO
{}
1 the plan.
4781 2
We made arrangements for this to be delivered to
{}
my motel and for the power company to pick up a copy at 3
4 Mr. Fisse's office later in the day, which he said would be 5
ready.
It was not ready on Tuesday.
6 I received my copy last night.
It was delivered 7
to the motel, and that is the document we have before us which 8
we are considering today, sir.
9 Nowhere in that document is the itemization of 10 a single, solitary piece of equipment.
This is really a gross 11 breach of professional conduct, and I move that the document 12 be stricken on that basis alone.
13 We were informed to come to this prehearing ja
-conference to discuss the specifics which we would litigate and 15 the board is to determine what issues are to be litigated.
16 The document we have before us is nothing but a i
37 general motherhood statement that the county can do nothing.
18 Of course, that is not true.
They can do something.
19 You know that.
What they can do, they have not 20 specified.
What they cannot do, they have not specified.
Not a 21 single, solitary item of equipment was listed in spite of the 22 fact that this was clearly stated to Mr. Conner, myself,
(
23 Mrs. Moore, that it would be done so.
24 I call your attention, your Honor, to Gulf of ACE REPORMNG. INC.
CINC100 NATO. OMOO
4782 1
}
States Utility Company, River Bend Statica Units 1 and 2, ALAB-444 2
which was cited as 6 NRC 7601977.
3 I direct your attention to page 468.
"Once let in, however, an interested state must observe the procedural 4
5 requirement applicable to other applicants."
6 They also reference ALAB-3173 NRC at 18 on 7
Footnote 7.
So it becomes incumbent that we take a look at 8
what kind of burdens we are looking at.
9 2.714B states: "At this prehearing conference a 10 petitioner shall file a supplement to his petition to intervene 11 which must include a list of the contentions which petitioner 12 seeks to have litigated in the matter and the basis for each 13 contention set forth with reasonable specificity."
14 There is no specification in the Clermont County 15 Disaster "lan as to a defect.
16 There is no specific allegation as to when equipment 17 is missing so they can effectively carry out that plan.
There 18 is no basis set forth as to why that particular equipment is 19 necessary to carry out the plan.
20 Apart from the breach of commitment to counsel, 21 the document we have before us filed by Clermont County totally fails to meet the requirements of the commission as interpreted
/~T 22 V
23 in ALAB 444 by the Appeal Board that they do not set forth 24 specific intentions, and they set forth no basis for those ACE REPORDNG. INC.
CINCINN ATL OM80
S I
contentions.
4783
()
2 This is the prehearing conference at which this 3
is to be done.
The Appeal Board goes on further to point out
[}
4 on page 769 that the prehearing conference is the place to 5
set these issues for hearing and that is what we are here for.
6 The county was aware of it.
The regulations and 7
the Appeal Board require it, and we do not have an issue framed 8
by the county which is subject to litigation.
9 Let me point out, your Honor, on page 3 of 10 Mr. Fisse's document, paragraph 8 at the bottom, I read, and 11 I do not read fully in context:
Clermont County does not 12 have sufficient monetary capabilities to maintain -- drop a I
few words -- any equipment.
13 Now, we just know this is not true.
The county 14 15 must have some money to maintain some piece of equipment even 16 if it is a pencil sharpener.
17 The statement is false upon its face.
We are 18 entitled, the power company is also entitled, to a list of what 19 equipment we do not have funds to maintain, not this broad brush 20 to the world that the word is bad and we are poor.
21 This totally fails to meet 2.714, on top of 22 which there is no question in my mind or I think in ar' rational
(}
23 person's mind that Clermont County has no ability to maintain 24 any equipment at all.
I do not interpret it.
ACE REPORMNG. INC.
C8MCmm A75. OWO
O On page 4, paragraph 10, I would direct your 4784 1
2 attention in which they say that Clermont County does not have 3
the necessary equipment to provide independent assessment capabilities that are required by federal rules and regulations.
4 5
Mrs. Moore and I sat in our motel last night and 6
looked at each other and said, "What regulations?"
7 We are entitled to a citation of law to provide a basis that Clermont County has to make an indepcndent assess-g 9
ment of whatever they are assessing and provide a basis for it.
10 Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 really have no legal basis whatsoever either in the Federal Code or my agency's 11 12 regulations.
There is no requirement that Clermont County have 13 an indepenaent assessment of the capability required by my j4 regulations.
15 My regulations require a capability by the 16 Kentucky counties, State of Ohio, State of Kentucky.
There is j7 no requirement at all that Clermont County have an independent 18 capability to assess whether Kentucky can perform.
19 This is just plain nonsense.
This is not a list 20 of equipment, I point out.
I would like to point out the 21 Commission's statement on policy on conduct of licensing pro-
)
22 ceedings which was issued May 27, 1981.
23 The Federal Register citation I do not have.
24 On page 3, the Commission states:
" Individual adjudicatory ACE REPORDNG. INC.
CINCINN Afl. OMio
{}
1 boards are encouraged to expedite the hearing process by using 4785 2
those management methods already contained in Part 2 of the 3
Commission's rules and regulations."
{}
4 It is the position of the staff that the Part 5
2.714, 2.714B requirement of specificity and basis should be 6
applied with extreme rigor by this licensing board and the 7
circumstances strike the document which does not provide any a
specification or basis for a specification as to a defect in 9
10 The Commission went on to state on page 3 of 11 his policy statement as previously cited, " Fairness to all 12 involved in NRC adjudicatory procedures requires that every O' '
13 participant fulfill the obligations imposed by and in accordance 14 with applicable law and Commission regulations."
15 Now, we should, of course, address matters of 16 fairness and equity as well as law.
17 Clermont County has been negotiating with the 18 power company for several years on emergency planning.
The 19 State of Ohio from Columbus has sent people down to discuss 20 this matter with Clermont County.
21 In cases well down the line, we have a prehearing
()
22 conference called by this licensing board for the soecific 23 purpose of determining the issues to be heard in hearing.
At C3 24 this stage, the power company and my agency are faced with a
/
s ACE REPORDNG. INC.
CINCIMM Aft. OMIO I
I document which gives no specificity, gives no basis for any 4786 2
defects in the plan, postures the statement on its face that 3
Clermont County can maintain no equipment whatsoever, which we 4
know is not true, and goes on to ramble that they do have the 5
capability to assess the emergency capabilities of Kentucky.
6 That is paragraph 10.
7 The Commission clearly felt that this licensing 8
process should move with solidarity with due regard for the 9
rights of all parties.
Clermont County has failed to comply 10 with ALAB-444.
They have failed to company with 10 CFR 2.715 11 after they had been let in with requirements of 2.714B.
12 Clermont County has also breached its agreement 13 with the power company and the NRC staff of Tuesday to provide 14 a specific list of equipment and the basis as to why they need 15 that equipment.
Therefore, it is our position in a broad brush 16 that the filing by the Clermont County intervenors of the motion 17 to submit specific intentions, issues or subject matter of par-18 ticipants should be stricken in its entirety.
19 I would like to take issue with the power 20 comoany's last stat:ement, Mr. Conner.
I think Mr. Conner is 21 grossly in error when he suggests to this licensing board to 22 permit Clermont County to provide a more specific list.
They 23 have had that opportunity.
24 They have promised that list.
They have not 1
ACE REPORTING. INC.
CINCINN Aft. ONDO
i I
produced.
I think they should be denied the paper before you 4787' 2
and that their concerns should not be addressed in this hear-3 ing.
4 Thank you, your Honor, for your indulgence.
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Fisse.
6 MR. FISSE:
Initially, I would like to sa'/ that" 7
I resent Mr. Barth's attack on my integrity and my orofessional 8
capability.
I think this is not the place to make such an I
9 attack.
10 I think it is necessary you understand the 11 situation that the county has found itself in in' negotiations 12 with Cincinnati. Gas & Electric Company.
(
13 When the initial motion to intervene was filed, 14 it was a different prosecutor that was in office at that time, t
13 Subsequently, there was an election, a new prosecutor was i
16 elected, took over.
17 I was appointed to represent the county on this 18 case.
At that time we informed Cincinnati Gas & Electric 19 Company that we were taking an active role, that any communica-20 tion should be directed through the prosecutor's office.
21 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company has refused and has not met that request from the inception of my appearance O
22 23 up until today at such time when we continue to negotiate --
24 I will correct that -- up until the October 22 letter which ACE REPORTING. INC.
Csocesemats. OMao
l
()
I the prosecutor's office received a copy of it.
4788 2
Prior to that time, the prosecutor's office was
()
3 not involved in any way.
Communicaticns, negotiations were 4
directed through the Disaster Service Agency.
5 The May 15 letter is an equipment list from 6
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company provided to Clermont County 7
indicating equipment that they had agreed to provide.
I think 8
the key is that they had agreed to provide.
9 We are talking about, in terms of finding equip-10 ment, we are talking about agreement on both sides and not
~
11 agreement on one side.
We do not deny that some eauiement has 12 been received.
13 It is the county's position that all equipment 14 necessary, and I think it is adequately spelled out in these 15 contentions, all the equipment necessary has not been received 16 to permit the county to utilize and implement the plan as it 1-7 should be.
18 Now, subsequent to that May 15 letter, there 19 were at least two written communications with Cincinnati Gas &
20 Electric Company, a letter by myself dated August 11, 1981, 21 a letter by Kenneth Conover with a list of equipment that we
()
22 consulted with him to prepare that was submitted to them, and l
23 we asked for further specification, further clarify, further
()
24 information.
l ACE R EPORDNG. INC.
CINCIN4aTL OMIO
{ There were at least two or three phone calls 4789 l 2 subsequent to that in which I was not a direct participant, /~' 3 but I was *'rolved in that I was in Mr. Patterson's, the V) 4 prosecutor's, office, when these phone calls were made. 5 We requested a response to our letters. Each 6 time we were informed, "We will have it wtthin a week," or 7 "It is going out todar," or something of that form which we 8 never did receive. 9 On the 18th of October subsequent tc this board's 10 order on the 9th, which b,. the way does not require us to 11 specify with any sort of specificity in form or anything of 12 that nature, it says, "Be preoared to discuss in detail the O/ 13 subject or subject matters upon which you will participate," 14 and I believe, again, that this document satisfies that board's 15 order. 16 To correct Mr. Barth, during that conference, 17 it was never mentioned by myself, and I verified this with is other participants, that I would provide a specific list of 19 equipment. 20 I said I am planning to comply with the board 21 by submitting a list of subjects. {) 22 On October 18, there was a conversation with 23 Mr. Conner which a member of Stone and Webster was present 24 concerning whether or not a written list or a document had } ACE REPORMNG. lNC. CINCmN ATL OMio
(]) been prepared from CG&E in response to our phone calls and our 4790 I 2 letters. (~} 3 He indicated that he had not received anything. 4 It w;s necessary to place it to Mr. Conover because no communi-5 cations were being received by the prosecutor's office. 1 6 Stone and Webster has already indicated that -- 7 I just came from CG&E. I put it on somebody's desk. It is 6 being typed. You will receive it tuday. 9 We still did not receive it on the 22nd. We 10 met with the Commission's 021 that whether in light of the 11 fact that they were not negotiating with us at that point and 12 in light of the fact that the board's order required us to be () 13 orepared to discuss the subject matters, met with the 14 commissioners as to whether or not we should prepare something 15 in writing. 16 Apparently that got bacA to Cincinnati Gas & l 17 Electric Company on Friday. Mr. Patterson received a phone 18 call and on the 22nd we received a letter with a list of 19 equipment. 20 Now., the individual members of the County 21 Disaster Services Agency, the sheriff, other members of the () 22 local police departments have been engaged in training exer-23 cises with the attempt to obtain the necessary experience and (} 24 expertise to implement the Clermont County Plan for a number I { ACE REPORMNG, f MC. CINcinNAft. OM80 .-,n.
1 of months, but particularly with a great degree -- well, 4791 2 involving a great deal of their tine within the last week or 3 two in order to prepare for the November 18th scheduled exer-4 cise. 5 The fact that we did not receive this letter 6 until the 22nd; the fact that they were involved -- the 7 particular individuals who I must consult to determine a 8 specific list of equipment, which I do not think is necessary, 9 but if the board thinks it is, then it will be supplied -- the 10 fact that those individuals were involved in that; the fact that 11 this late response out us in a position where what were we going 12 to preoare, how were we going to prepare what to determine with ( 13 or on at the hea_ing? 14 I submit that it is not the county's fault. 15 It is not the county's fault of dragging their feet or negotiat-16 ing in bad faith. 17 It is the company's fault in the fact that they 18 have not responded to our requests for further information and 19 the fact that they did not resoond until seven days prior 20 to the hearing its, elf, this prehearing conferenca, which 21 placed the county in a position to submit the document that 22 has been submitted. 23 Now, as I understand it as far as specific 24 contentions go, the county has been submitted under Section ACE REPORMNG. INC, CfMC8MMatt. OsteO
(]) 1 2.715C. It provides, which I am sure you are aware of, that 4792 2 an opportunity will be afforded representative of the state, (]) 3 county, et cetera, to participate, without requiring the repre-4 sentative to take a position with respect to the issue. 5 The Presiding officer may require the representa-6 tive to indicate with reasonable specificity in advance'of the 7 hearing the subject matters on which he desires to participate. 8 That was further set out in your letter or your 9 order of October 9. We hear in part to specify in some detail 10 the subjects upon which we intend to participate, which as an 11 aside, sort of confuses me that the representatives of the 12 comoany raised that issue, because they have been in possession O 13 of letters that have been negotiated and sent back and forth. 14 They are aware of the negotiations. 15 I do not see how they can sit here and argue 16 that it lacks specificity on its face and as a whole. There 17 are certain items that are specific. 18 With regard to Mr. Barth's statement of criticism 19 of this document as far as assessment requir2ments go, I cite 20 the board to Section 59.47, Emergency Plans, 10 CFR, Section 21 747B 9000 which states: " Adequate method systems and equipment () 22 for assessing and monitoring actual or potential off-site 23 consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use." (]) 24 That is a prerequisite, one of the listed ACE REPORMNG. INC. CINCINN Aft. ON#O
I {} requirements, that have to be met in order to make that plan 4793 2 adequate. 3 ) Moreover, the board's order did not include the 4 county as a participant in the conference call. They are 5 talking about, or as I understand it, technically at least 6 the order was placed to the parties to the proceeding to par-7 ticipate in some sort of prehearing discussion, and as I understand 8 it, initially absent my request and direction by one of the 9 other participants, I was not going to be included in that 10 call. I requested to be included in that call so I could 11 inform the other parties that we were going to comply with the 12 board's order in writing or attempt to comply with that order. 13 With regard to the document itself, I really do 14 not know how much more specific it can be. It states: " Inter-15 venor is in possession of some communications equipment, but 16 we do not possess all of the equipment needed." 17 It states that we do not have the sufficient 18 monetary capabilities to supply that equipment. It states that 19 no binding arrangements have been entered into to supply the 20 equipment which we, feel is needed. 21 It repeats the same set of events with regard 22 to monitoring equipment. With regard to Mr. Barth's interpreta- {} 23 tien of 8A, I find that absolutely absurd that he can read this 24 document and think it refers to any equipment that the county f ACE REPORMNG. INC. CtNCINM ATO. OM60 L
i 1 {} has in its possession, whether or not it is provided to imple-4794 2 ment a communication's plan or not. 3 There are other issues set out in there that 4 are requirements under Section 5047, under Aopendix E and under 5 Section 5034, I believe it is, with regard to training, with 6 regard to implementation of the plan, updating of the plan, 7 maintenance of the plan. 8 I do not know how much more specific I can be ? when I state that Clermont County does not have the financial 10 resources to undertake the responsibility for maintenance of 11 the plan, updating of the plan, et cetera, et cetera, providing 12 the training. 13 I don't know how much more specific I can be 14 in those areas. IS Now, with regard to specific equipment, I had j 16 every intention of coming here, if at all possible, with the l'7 list of equipment other than what the company has knowledge of 18 pursuant to negotiations. 19 However, because of the fact that Disaster l l 20 Services, the sheriff and all of the individuals that I need 21 to consult with to prepare such a list have been engaged in 22 attempting to implement, to gain the expertise and knowledge 23 to use this plan, it has been impossible for me to consult with 24 them for the last week which is all we were given since this ACE REPORUNG. INC. C1NCsMM Afl. OsetO ...r..-, ~_
1 1 communication, latest communication from the company, which was 4795 2 dated October 22, 1981. 3 By the way, the company knew those training 4 exercises were being conducted. S .TUDGE FRYE: Let me ask you, Mr. ?isse: How 6 far apart'do you think you are, you and the company, in your 7 negotiations? 8 MR. FISSE: With regard to the list of equipment 9 that has been requested by DSA and which is agreed to be supplied 10 by cincinnati Gas & Electric, we are approaching it and as this 11 indicates we are approaching it as a negotiable settlement 12 matter. 13 Now, there might be other -- it has been 14 indicated that there are other areas or possibly other areas 15 that creates a problem as far as Disaster Services and the j 16 sheriff. However, as I indicated, I cannot specify that at 17 this point in time because, frankly, I have not been provided 18 the courtesy or the time by the company to sit down and provide 19 that information. 20 JUD,GE FRYE: There might be other areas? Let me see if I can understand this a little bit better. 21 22 There are other areas that the various agencies 23 of the county may have to raise; is that what you are saying? 24 MR. FISSE: Concerning equipment for monitoring ACE REPORMNG, tNC. clescanNAft. Ouso .. - _ _ -, _. -. ~,.... -~
(]) 1 and communication, basically it is -- most of it is equipment 4796 2 related. What I am saying is that I think I can supply further (} 3 specifics with regard to some of the equipment in the monitoring 4 and communications area, but I have not been given the oppor-5 tunity to do that. That is my position. 6 JUDGE FRYE: When do you think that could be 7 done? 8 MR. FISSE: Depending on what the schedule is, 9 again, for the sheriff and Disaster Services Agency in attempt-l 1c ing to gain the expertise to implement the plan in time for the 11 November 18 exercise, which I have no knowledge of at this 12 point in time, I would say withir. two or three weeks, but 13 depending on what their schedule is, and it is all -- 14 well, 75 to 95 percent of DSA's time is. involved in Zimmer 15 related plan related activities by his own estimate. 16 There are other things that he has to do with 17 regard to Disaster Services, but 75 to 95 percent of his tinic 18 is involved in this. 19 I don't know what his schedule is. I can find 20 that.out. I woul& say two to three weeks. 21 JUDGE FRYE: In that period, then, you could .() 22 inform the company of all of the items that you consider to be 23 outstanding and subject to negotiation? 24 MR. FISSE: As it exists at this time, yes. (} ACE REPORMNG. INC. C14CINN AN. OMtO +-
1 I understand that the board is dealing with it as it exists at 4797 2 this time, but I understand that the board is also aware that 3 after the exercise there may be further revisions and further 4 things that are found necessary by PEMA which in and of itself 5 could act to resolve some of the problems associated with the l P an. 6 7 If FEMA makes a finding that it is not able to 8 be implemented because of the lack of the equipment we requested 9 that may resolve the problem in and of itself. 10 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Conner, do you want to respond? 11 MR. CONNER: Sir, yes. I think Mr. Fisse is sort 12 of jumping around a bit here, and I think he is missing the 13 point that if these contentions, or whatever, are to be 14 received, they must be specific, both under the.715C and the 15 implementing decisicc3 and the board's order to indicate in 16 detail. 17 For that reason, I think these are just plain 18 bad and that they should be dismissed out of hand. 19 The equipment list that I referred to earlier 20 that is in this particular letter cannot give credibility to 21 the so-called contentions as Mr. Fisse would apparently have 22 them do. 23 On the other hand, we are quite willing and if 24 the board wishes in wearing its hat as encouraging negotiations, b e l
(]) to provide you with the list of equipment that we have already 4798 I 2 agreed to provide to Clermont County and indeed provided much (]) 3 of it already, totaling more than a million dollars of equip-4 ment that we are giving the county. 5 So nobody can say we have been niggardly in 6 trying to deal with them. In fact, when you talk about dollars, 7 one wonders about Mr. Fisse's attitude because as soon as this 8 plan goes on the line, Clermont County will be getting in 9 excess of S7 million in taxes which certainly gives them 10 plenty of money to do the support services that might be 11 required to carry out their emergency plan. 12 I do feel that it is important for the board to O 13 give us some specific item, and I mean both the company and 14 Clermont County as a participant in this proceeding. 15 Mr. Fisse stated that at some point in time l 16 unspecified a prosecuting attorney directed that all communica-l 17 tions be made to him. Neither the company's representatives 18 who have been directly involved in that ever heard of that. 19 It is news to us. 20 Weiare mildly curious that the prosecuting i
- 21 attorney is apparently new, supplanted Mr. Conover's responsi-l ()
22 bility as the emergency plan coordinator or that he has some 23 delegation from the county board, and I think Mr. Fisse proved (]) our point by saying that he sent a letter on August 11 and then 24 i 0, o ACE MEPORDNG. lNC. CINC8NNaft. OM40 1
I []} sometime before or after unspecified, Mr. Conover also sent a 4799 2 letter. 3 I think this simply illustrates that we really 4 do not know who the responsible spokesman for the county is or 5 are. 6 We would ask the board to, if it wishes, look 7 at this equipment list and what we have agreed to do to indi-8 cate what, I think, you used the phrase "How far apart we are," 9 I think if you look at this one page, you will see that we are 10 not that far apart at all. We would like to hand you copies 11 of these if you want to look at them for future guidance or 12 in case you have to order some kind of negotiating conference. 13 JUDGE FRYE: Well, let's hold that for just a 14 moment. 15 MR. CONNER: All right. So simply stated, I 16 gather the board would give them some time to be more specific - 17 I have to say one other thing. I have not the foggiest idea 18 what Mr. Fisse meant by saying about equipment or planning has 19 been indicated for other areas. 20 We have not the foggiest idea what he is talking 21 about. Perhaps we did not extend him the courtesy to which he {}} 22 thinks he is entitled, but he could write us a letter, make a 23 phone call telling us what he wants anyway. 24 (} So we just do not know what the county may -- ACF REPORPNG. IN C. CENCINN Afl, OM60
4800 I people in the county may have in mind in addition to the equipment () 2 that is listed in here on eight pages, a million dollars worth {} of equipment which indicates about five items as to which there 3 4 is any disagreement, the major two of which are vehicles. 5 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Barth, do you have any further 6 responses? 7 MR. BARTH: I would like to, your Honor. The 8 negotiations between Clermont County and the Cincinnati Gas & 9 Electric Company for emergency planning as a result of the 10 Zimmer plant basically are not a concern of my agency, but the 11 board's concern is whether or not there is a legitimate issue 12 by the county which could be litigated in this matter. 13 The county knows the equipment it has. It 14 knows the equipment that it feels it needs in order to implenent 15 the plan. 16 Now, the time to set forth what equipment they 17 need to execute this plan and why they need that equipment is 18 not tomorrow, not the next day, not two years from now. NcJ 19 is the time for the county to say that we need X, Y and Z, and 20 that i.s why we nee,d it and that is why we hava to have it. 21 That is what the ALAB Board says, and that is what it says 22 is responsible by these. () 23 That is what we are here for. That is what I 24 want. That is what we were promised. We do not have it. I ACE REPORTNG..MC. cincsNNaft. omeo I m
i'.:. ;, 1 I continue my motion to strike the document. Thank you, your 4801 4 2 Hcnor. 3 MR. FISSE: If I may in regard to a couple of 4 issues, as far as the tax that might be received by the county, 5 the county did not ask Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company to 6 place its plant there. They came out there and knew that they 7 would incur tax liability, but with regard to Mr. Barth, I take 8 that as a very personal attack on my professional integrity 9 and capability. 10 This board has the power to reprimand, censor or 11 suspend from proceedings. I would not ask for that, but I 12 would ask the board to direct him to at least apologize to me 13 in front of all these people and all these other participants 14 for those statements regarding professional capability. 15 MR. CONNER: May the record reflect that I join 16 in Mr. Barth's comments. 17 MR. FISSE: And I would ask that Mr. Conner 18 acologize as well. 39 JUDGE FRYE: Gentlemen, I would hope that we 20 could avoid getting personal. 21 Let me go back to the substance of the matter, 22 and what I am wondering is whether in that twc-week period, say, 23 that the county and all of the various officers of the county j
- 4 who would have some voice in this get together with the company ACE REPOR TitdG. INC.
CissCaN4&Ti, OMIO
(]) and try to put the final touches on some sort of a settlement, 4802 I 2 and in the event that that is not possibla, the county would (") 3 then file very specific contentions as to what they feel, the %) 4 county feels, is inadequate with regard to the emergency plan. 5 MR. FISSE: At this point I can say that we will 6 make every effort to meet within the next two weeks. 7 However, the company is going to be just as 8 involved, I assume, as DSA and the sheriff's office and those 9 others in preparing for November 18. 10 JUDGE FRYE: I am following your suggestion of 11 a two-to three-week period. Mr. Conner, is that a feasible 12 time period? 13 MR. CONNER: Certainly. We will meet with them 14 at any time. I believe it is possible for people to do more 15 than one thing in a two-week time frame. 16 MR. FISSE: We will certainly attempt to do that. I'7 If that is not possible, I would like the board to at least 18 specify what -- in my own opinion, I don't know how you c.'n be 19 more specific than to say that Clermont County does not have 20 sufficient monitoring capability or access to the funds needed 21 to replace, service, test -- (} 22 JUDGE FRYE: As I understand the situation that 23 exists now between Clermont County and the company, correct me (v~T 24 if I am wrong, you basically have reached agreement on a good [ Acs armonimo me. Cl*eCINhaft. OMIC
I portion of your outstanding issues between you? 4803 2 MR. FISSE: Agreement has basically been reached 3 on those itsms of equipment to be supplied. 4 JUDGE FRYE: I see. 5 MR. FISSE: No a/Jreement has been reached; in 6 fact the company has taken the position that they will not be 7 responsible for maintenance, testing, et cetera, et cetera, 8 replacement costs under certain conditions. 9 JUDGE FRYE: Without getting into the details of 10 the negotiations, the point I am trying to make is that if the 11 impression J.at I am getting is that there is a substantial 12 amount that has already been agreed to, would that be correct? ( 13 MR. FISSE: That is correct. 14 JUDGE FRYE: I would hope that you would be able i 15 to resolve whatever else may be outstanding. If you cannot, I 16 would hope that what you would file by way of your contentions l'7 would address just those matters that were not resolved through 18 the negotiating process rather than an overall broad statement 19 that the county does not have the financial resources to do 20 thus and such. 21 MR. FTSSE: I think the board should be aware ) that there was a discussion undertaken prior to the convening 22 23 of this hearing which I had mentioned that we would make every 24' attempt to provide a detailed list of some items of the equipment ACE REf'ORTING. f NC, cthciswatt. onese l
b (]) or the problems, which apparently Mr. Conner chose to take the 4804 I 2 st'and on, which he has every right to do, but there was an } attempt prior to this to arrive at the agreement that the board 3 4 is now suggesting. 5 JUDGE FRYE: I think it would be much better for 6 all concerned who are able to arrive at an agreement. If you 7 can't, we will hear the issues that are outstanding and resolve 8 them, but I think that it would be better for all concerned if 9 it is possible for you to reach agreement without having to go 10 through the necessity of a hearing. 11 MR. FISSE: I certainly agree, and that is what 12 we intend to work towards. O 13 JUDGE FRYE: I would hope that you could do it 14 in a spirit of coooeration. 15 MR. FISSE: I have made every effort to cooperate, 16 and I will continue to do so. 17 JUDGE FRYE: I direct this to -- 18 MR. FISSE: I am not the one who started the 19 personal attacks. 20 JUDGE FRYE: Let's drop the personal attacks. 21 I think we will get along much better if we all calm down on () 21 that point. 23 MR. CONNER: Mr. Chairman. () 24 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. I ur.. o rmo. me. j ... c; o..... i ;
/"x 1 MR. CONNER: The same suggestion I made yesterday 4805 U 2 with respect to another party, if Mr. Fisse would simply read 3 in what his additional items are to the court reporter after (} 4 this prehearing conference or something like that, it could 5 be all there and supplement it to get them on the record as 6 quickly as possible, if he indeed knows what they are. 7 JUDGE FRYE: At this point, we are talking about i 8 items that are subject to negotiations. I do not think they 9 need to come into the record. 30 MR. CONNER: Some are available right here and jj now. 12 JUDGE FRYE: If your negotiations are unsuccess-13 ful, then would be the appropriate time to put it to the record, y or if you want to include it as a settlement agreement that you 15 want the board to approve in the event that you are successful 16 in your negotiations, that would also be appropriate. 17 MR. CONNER: Again, it is a question of meeting I 18 with the right people. 19 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. 20 MR.. CONNER: I would ask the board to require 21 Clermont County to submit this, not as soon as possible or some-(]) 22 thing as nebulous, but say within two weeks, by November 13, so 23 that we will have something to deal with rather than coming 74 back here at the time of the hearing and saying, "We?1, I have } ACE 9 EPORTING. INC. QNCINhafl. Owto i +m- +-e-, g
1 not been able to meet with the people." 4806 2 MR. ?ISSE: I would advise the board that that {} 3 is the situation if it takes two or three days to meet with these people and resolve these issues and that interferes with 4 S their preparation for this November 18 scheduled plan. 6 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Fisse, when can you find out 7 what their schedule is? 8 MR. FISSE: I can find out from a call placed 9 today, this morning. 10 JUDGE FRYE: Let me suggest that perhaps it would be helpful if you did that and perhaps you can all arrange 11 i 12 a date this morning. O 13 MR. FISSE: Certainly, I will do that. 14 JUDGE FRYE: We will expect to hear by the 13th 15 of next month how things have progressed and expect in the event 16 that you cannot resolve your remaining differences that you 17 will have specific contentions filed. 18 MR. FISSE: Certainly. 19 JUDGE FRYE: Let's move on now. Perhaps it would 20 be a good time to take a short creak. 21 We will take a ten-minute break. When we come () 22 back, we can move on to the contentions of the City of Mentor. 23 (Short recess taken.) ) 24 JUDGE FRYE: Let's go back on the record. 6Ct REPOMVNG. tNC. C64CINM 479, Owpo ...n
1 Mr. Conner, do you want to lead off with the 4807 2 City of Mentor.'s specific contentions? 3 MR. CONNER: Yes, sir. Here, again, I think that 4 rather than try to go through these seriatim, that it is perhaps 5 better to try to -- 6 MRS. REDER: Excuse me. I could not really hear 7 because of the gentleman in the back of the room talking. 8 MR. CONNER: Anybody that calls me a gentleman 9 is entitled -- 10 MR. REDER: She called the other fellows gentle-11 men. 12 MR. CONNER: She was half right. What I would O i2 say is ehee the fi11ngs by Meneer are based epon e.o fundamenta1 14 misconceptions. 15 The first is that they challenged the plans of 16 Kentucky and Campbell County because Mentor was not directly 17 involved, and I have sympathy, but it is not my duty nor is it j 18 that of the NRC or of this board to tell the State of Kentucky i 4 or Campbell County how it will do what it does to arrange 19 20 protective actions for members of the public, 21 For example, one illustration is: Why wasn't 22 Mentor talked to on evacuation problems? 23 Well, there is no police department in Mentor as 2e we understand it, so, you know, who would you talk to on that? ACE PEl'URTIN 1. INC.
I The FEMA procedures, of course, establish ways for input from 4808 2-any citizen into this and apparently from what I have read, 3 that route has not been followed, and I simply -- the ' applicant 4 has no way of knowing the extent to which Mentor has talked 5 with Campbell County people or the State of Kentucky people 6 as to its particular interests or particular things that should J 7 be done. 8 We submit that Kentucky and Campbell County has 9 prepared emergency plans which fully meet the requirements of the 10 !!RC and FEMA as set forth in 0654 and that these plans in fact 11 provide reasonable assurance for the protection of the public 12 in the unlikely event that special protective measures uo to O 13 and including evacuation might be required, and we think this 14 is the extent to which this board can go. 15 There is no requirement that Mentor be directly 16 involved. 17 The second thing is that Mentor apparently has 18 the conception that an emergency plan must be absolute, final, 19 set in concrete, written in advance, not subject to change and 20 arranged now and no departures ever allowed. 21 For example, OJ of their contentions for the 22 storage and subsequent use of a radiological emergency of 23 uncontaminated feed and water for livestock -- well, in the Q 24 event, the unlikely event, such things were ever required, it ACE REPORTING, INC. CINCINagafg. OMsg
(]) I pretty routine, health physics, to get the proper authorities 4009 2 in the affected jurisdiction to simply say: Do not use the (]) 3 milk. Do not use the fodder. Do not use any of this for the 4 time being. 5 But you cannot anticipate which way the wind 6 will blow in the unlikely event that the accident ever occurred. 7 Here, again, we are talking about health and 8 safety of people, not animals, so there is plenty of opportunity 9 to protect the people given the farthest-out scenario. 10 Well, like Windscale, given the old Windscale 11 case, there is still ample time to protect the public from milk 1 12 or any of the animals ingesting radioactivity frcm grass or () 13 whatever. 14 So we think these are the two fundamental areas 15 in the Mentor approach to participation here, and for that 16 reason, we think that none of these contentions should be 17 granted. 18 Moreover, we do think that many of them are j 19 answered and in fact the good people of Mentor simply have not 20 had an opportunityito apparently go through all of the material 21 in the application and the emergency plans. (]) 22 For example, 1-A -- 4-A says: "Neither plan is 23 cross-referenced to the evaluation criteria of NUREG-0654." (]) 24 This is plain wrong. They are there. I do not ACE REPORMNG. INC. CfMCIN9t A79. OM80
I () I know why the mistake was made, but the cross-references are 4810 2 there and have been there and are in the public document room (]) 3 and so forth. So I think this illustrates the basic lack of 4 understanding of the situation. 5 I would submit that probably in the event there 6 are any contentions ultimately granted for litigation in this 7 case that what the City of Mentor would hear at that time would 8 probably answer their questions if they come to accept the fact 9 that the local jurisdictions, the State of Kentucky and Campbell 10 County, did not choose to involve them in the emergency planning 11 exercise and preparation and that we have simply no control over 12 that, nor does this board. O 13 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Barth, do you have a comment? 14 MRS. MOORE: I would like to take these conten-15 tions approximately one by one because the Staff has a few 16 points to make with regard to them that do not necessarily 17 lend themselves to generalities. 18 In the first contention, this contention lacks l 19 the specificity requisite to formulate this as an issue in the 20 proceeding since Mdntor has not demonstrated how its failure 21 to participate or the lack of collaboration within the State 1 (]) 22 of Kentucky has an effect on the plan. 23 They say the plan is inadequate, but they do not (]) 24 specify which portions of this plan would be inadequate due to ACE REPORMNG. lNC. CINCINN ATI. ONIO I I
I I {) the lack of collaboration, if there is one. 4811 2 JUDGE FRYE: We are starting with No. 1 on page 1 3 right? 4 MRS. MOORE: Right. Does that need repetition? 5 MRS. REDER: I could not hear. 6 MRS. MOORE: I will reiterate briefly. 7 MRS. REDER: I did miss part of her statement. 8 MRS. MOORE: I will repeat it briefly. With 9 regard to Contention 1, it is the Staff's position that this 10 contention lacks the specificity requisite to make this a liti-11 gable issue in this proceeding and the basis for that portion 12 is that, though the contention states the plan is inadequate 12 because of lack of collaboration between Mentor and the 14 State of Kentucky, it doe.a not specify which aspects of the 15 Kentucky or Campbell County Plans would be affected by the lack 16 of Mentor's participation. l'7 With regard to Contention 2, it is merely more 18 of a statement, as far as we understand it, that the plan is 19 self-repudiating since it also relies on standard operating 20 procedures. 21 We think the statement in 0654 clearly statee ) that the plan and the standard operating proced.ur, are ccmple-22 23 .mentary. r~g 24 Contention 3 discusses the plans for Indiana or V ACE REPORTING. f NC. csecinwan, oniso
() I lack of plans for Indiana. We believe this is clearly beyond 4812 2 the scope of Mentor's interest as a governmental entity in this rm V 3 proceeding. 4 Mentor is representing its citizens, and those 5 people are located in the City of Mentor and their participation 6 in this proceeding should thus be restricted to that interest, 7 and that is the interest of the citizens in Mentor. 8 Mr. Conner has already addressed Contention No. 9 4 about the cross-reference, 4-A, I believe it is, so I will 10 leave that one. 11 Contention 4-B also lacks specificity. It 12 refers to an evacuation time study. The exact study is not ,U 13 identified, and I think we need to know which study we are 14 talking about before we can litigate anything about it. 15 There is no basis presented with any specificity 16 as to the error in the study and how it affects the citizens 17 of Mentor, and it is Mentor again that we should be focusing 18 on in this proceeding as far as the participation of that city 19 is concerned. So, therefore, we would say that 4-B lacks the 20 specificity to liti* gate in this proceeding. 21 The same is true with regard to 4-C which is () 22 alternative evacuation routes. Insof ar as this contention refers f to roads, specific roads in and around Mentor, it would be 23 i O 24 il edeauete. l l AC2 R EPORMNG. INC. cowCimeemit oww
O newever, there is nothine in the conteneien thae 4813 2 tells us which roads are concerned and where they are in rela-O eron to Mentor, and we think this is necessary because of the d city's particular participation in the proceeding. 5 The same is true for 4-D. There is a lack of 6 specificity. It merely states that Route 8 is an undesirable 7 road for evacuation purposes with no elucidation of why. We 8 think this elucidation would be necessary to make this an 9 acceptable issue to be litigated. 10 4-E refers generally to the schools in the ten-Il mile area and the Staff believes that this contentica, this I2 subcontention, must again be limited to the schools in Mentor 13 or the schools attended by children living in Mentor. I4 The Contention 4-F deals with the storage of 15 potassium iodido. He understand that that is being conducted 16 by the State of Kentucky and could be a dispute between Mcator I7 and the State of Kentucky, but we would not object to um 18 particular contention since it is limited to Mentor. 19 4-G, evacuation of elderly and handicapped 20 people, must again'be limited to Mentor and there must be more 21 specification of what facilities principally are lackinc for O 22 the evecuation of these geog 1e, the type of number of geog 1e 23 we are referring to, and what is inadequate about the current O 24 evecuation grocedures. ACE REPCRTING, INC. cinc1mnats, ento
1 4-11, the fire department, this contention does 4814 2 show that there is any relationship between the Mentor Fire 3 Department and emergency planning in Campbell County or in the 4 State of Kentucky. 5 It seems to the Staff that such a relationship 6 must indeed be established. 7 This notification of Contention 4-I refers to 8 the early notification system. We know in fact that there is a 9 siren in Mentor, for one thing, and that is the staff's under-10 standing that there will be radios provided to the citizens 11 in Mentor. 12 Part of this contention deals with comoensation 13 for rental of space in homes, presumably for the radios. We 14 think this is not an appropriate subject for litigation since 15 obviously whether one has a radio in one's home is particularly 16 a voluntary act and you do not have to keep it, so we do not 17 believe that this kind of a subcontention is appropriate < 18 We would need specification as to why and how 19 the warning notification or early notification system in Mentor 20 and relating to the~citi= ens of Mentor is inadeauate, not only 21 that it is merely designed to notify 40 percent of the people 22 in the ten-mile area. That is no?, sufficient enough for 23 Mentor's participation. 24 J talks about the storage of uncontaminated food I act menennNG. tNC. c,~ca.~are o~.a s
l {} for animals. First of all, we are not quite sure what kind of 4815 2 animals we are talking about and, second of all, I believe 3 {~) Mr. Conner has already addressed this in saying that the plans 4 are to be geared to the health and safety of the public and 5 the appropriate actions must and should be taken at the time 6 to determine what food should be given to animals or people 7 or whatever. 8 K, Mentor gets water, we understand that Mentor 9 gets water from wells. If this is incorrect -- and not from 10 the ohto River -- if this is incorrect, the contention should 11 at least be redrafted to show what kind of water system we are 12 talking about, its loc'ation, and how it is affected by the lack 13 of monitoring. 14 L, thero is no communication between the City of 15 Mentor and Zimmer, and I think this contention and the staff 16 believes this contention requires,more specificity as to why l 17 this lack of communication, if it exists, is pertinent, and t why the system as it does exist,'Gh$tever communication system 18 19 is presently available, is inadequate. 20 Andithe complaint that Mentor' states in
- 21 Contention 4-M, that they have no role in the exercise, is f
[} 22 really a rather general statement. Again, that is between the 23 state and local and county authorities, and we believe this is (~T 24 not an appropriate issue for litigation in this proceeding and s/ ACZ REPORMNG. INC. CINCINN Aft. OMtO .,, ~ _ _.
1 Q by the time the exercise is completed, that issue may well be 4816 ' 2 taken care of. (J So in general, the Staff's position is that T 3 4 many of these contentions presently lack the required specificit t 5 and basis for these contentions. 6 While we realize that Mentor is an interested 7 state or municipality and they could come into this proceeding 8 with taking a position, the Staff believes that now it is 9 incumbent upon them, since they want to take an active role 10 in this proceeding, to provide issues with sufficient specificit r, 11 but we can come here and litigate the issues in an appropriate 12 way and make a full and complete record on those issues. 13 To do that, we need specific issues on which we 14 can present evidence in the proceeding. Thank you. i 15 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you very much, Mrs. Moore. i 16 Do you have a question? ( 17 MRS. REDER: Could I ask a question before the l 18 City of Mentor responds? 19 JUDGE FRYE: Well, it is your turn next. 20 MRSi REDER: There seems to be a question of the 21 use of the word specificity and reasonable specificity, and I ]; 22 am referring to 10 CFR parts 2.715C, I believe it is, and 23 _ I don't.teally -- are we expected to be specific or reasonably j 24 sp' ci'fic, to do this do we have to outline in detail? What is e ACE RE9ORTING.1NC. f cimcammatt. omeo
s I it? 4817 (} 2 JUDGE FRYE: Well, you k.'ow we went through this 3 to a certain extent with the contentions of.ZAC yesterday, and 4 I think that, as a rule of thumb, and I realize it is not always 5-easy to follow it, but I think that what we are trying to get is 6 a statement of contentions which puts the other parties on 7 notice as to precisely what it is that you have concerns about, 8 'what points you plan to address at the hearing so that if you 9 say in very general terms that there is no emergency plan, 10 for instance, affecting Mentor, that is not going to really 11 tell them very much. Or if you say that the emergency plan is 12 inadequate, that doesn't tell them very much. You have to tell ) 13 them in what respects the emergency plan '.s inadequate. 14 MR. REDER: I can understand some of that argu-15 ment about lack of soecificity. 4 16 JUDGE FRYE: Let me interrupt you. I am sure 17 you have some opinions about the specificity of your conten-18 tions and so on. Why don't you just address Mr. Conner's 19 arguments to the extent that you want to first. He made a 20 more general argument. Then we can move on from there. 21 MR. REDER: In regard to Mr. Conner's statements, . (} 22 I think it is not NRC's duty to involve Men'or, acccrding to c I 23 our Contention 1 and according to our citations here. } I hope the board will understand that I am not 24 ACE REPORTING. INC. CINCIMM ATI. OMao /
) I an attorney, and I cannot trip these citations off my tongue 4818 2 more quickly than people can write them down as tha attorneys (~g 3 here can. \\-) 4 Indeed I do not have access to all of the cita-5 tions at present, but in regards to Mr. Conner's statement 6 that it is not NRC's duty to involve Mentor, I think we are 7 pretty specific here in Contention 1. 8 We cite Federal Register and New Reg. 0654 9 and so forth. 10 I think the whole rationale behind the concept of 11 t'.argency planning implies the involvement of local governments. 12 We have made a quotation here in which we say, from New Reg. 13 0654, most definitely says that even villages must be involved. ja JUDGE FRYE: Let me ask you: To what extent 15 has the city been involved? I take it i.ot at all? 16 MR. REDER: Only to the extent that we arn here. j7 You mean in the plans themselves? 18 JUDGE FRYE: In the formulation of the plans. j9 MR. REDER: To the best of uy knowledge, the 20 only involvement was a visit by the state and county DES people 21 to the City of Mentor early this year. It was an informal Di 22 meeting in which the city received promises and assurances, V 23 verbal, however, that the city would be involved in the actual ") 24 planning and writing of the plans. J ACE REPORMNG. lNC. CsNCINNaft. OMIO
{} As we say in our cover here, we waited patiently 4819 1 2 with hope and expectation that we would be involved, and we (s 3 weren't. %-] So that is the extent of our involvement. 4 JUDGE FRYE: Do you know why this happened? 5 MR. REDER: No, I do not know why. 6 JUDGE FRYE: How large a city is Mentor? 7 MR. REDER: Population somewhere around 250 8 people-9 JUDGE FRYE: 250 people, 10 MR. REDER: Yes, sir, although I do not really 11 see the relevance of the population of the city and -- 12 JUDGE FRYE: It was more a personal curiosity Ak/ r3 on my part than anything else. ja MR. REDER: All right. I think that the 250 or 15 so people in Mentor should have the assurances of the Federal 16 Government, the same assurances, as the people of Cincinnati 17 or the people of Kentucky or Ohio or whatever. 18 JUDGE FRYE: Sure. There was some allusion to j9 crocedures that FEMA may have for participation in their 20 evaluatior. of the emergency plans. Do you have any knowledge of 21 that or have you investigated that? 22 MR. REDER: We have no knowledge whatsoever. 23 I think what we are trying to make clear in these contentions is that the city has not been involved in any way. I really 24 ACE REPORUNG. !NC. CINCINN AT1. OMIS
4820 0 1 think that is a direct violation of the whole concept of planning. 2 JUDGE FRYE: I see. If you were to be involved, 3 I take it you would have to be involved with the preparation of 1 4 the county plan and the state to the extent that the state plan 5 might also -- 6 MR. REDER: I think that is reasonable. 7 JUDGE FRYE: I take it really that what your 8 concern is here is the fact that you have not been brought 9 into the formulation of these plans? 10 MR. REDER: That is only one of our concerns. 11 We are also concerned about the adequacy of the plans and the 12 protection of the people in Mentor. We think the City of O 13 Mentor should have the legal authority and the responsibility 14 to protect the health, safety, and interests of the people of 15 Mentor. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Have you made some effort to contact l 17 the county officials? 18 MR. REDER: Many occasions, ye. 39 JUDGE FRYE: And which county is that? 20 MR. REDER: This is Campbell County. 21 JUDGE FRYE: And Campbell County is not participat- {} 22 ing in this proceeding, as I understand it? 23 MR. REDER: No. 24 MRS. REDER: I would like to add something to ACE REPORTING. INC. j CINCINN A TI. OMIO l
(} what my husband had said earlier. Several years ago when the 4821 I 2 City of Mentor became interested in participating in these {} hearings, we visited the state officials. We made numerous 3 4 trips down to Frankfort. We talked with local officials. 5 We talked with the radiation control branch of 6 Kentucky government. We talked with military affaires. We have talked to local fire departments, local school people, any 7 a number of governmental branches, and we have tried to get some 9 reassurances about the interest which we had concerning Mentor, 10 its citizens, its children, evacuation, and we were included for a while in the attendance of a couple of meetings held by 11 ~ 12 the Disaster Emergency Services local branch. (~~) 13 We did attend some of these meetings. He were 14 notified of some of these meetings. 15 Then when Campbell County and the State of 16 Kentucky decided that they were no longer going to write the 17 tlan, that they would have Stone and Webster, paid for by 18 CG&E, write the plan, that was the end of our participation. 19 We were no longer notified. 20 We n'o longer got to voice those concerns. 21 In fact, all the issues which we have brought up to that point ({} 22 have completely been ignored in these plans. 23 It is almost as if they said, "Well, this is (} 24 too much trouble. We will cut the plans right here." ACE REPCRMNG. INC. Ca*eCINN ATL Onto .n..
.(]} 1 Our children have not -- I think there are two 4822 2 paragraphs concerning the school children, Mentor's school i {) children, that attend St. Peter and Paul in. the Campbell j 4 County School System. We were told when we had a public hearing that we should not worry about these aspects because 5 they would be covered SOP, standard operating procedure. 6 7 However, we can't get an answer as to when that will be available, who is responsible for it, will the equip-8 ment be provided, so that a true evacuation can occur for all 9 the children within a reasonable time, and we can't get the 10 11 answers. 12 That is one reason why we are faced with this 13 position of writing contentions. 34 JUDGE FRYE: To what extent do you see your j 15 p sition or your concerns as being the same as those that are 16 being voiced by ZAC? e l 17 MRS. REDER: In most instances, I do not-think 18 that they are the same. There is some overlapping, but we are i concerned primarily with the City of Mentor and its people, j9 i g JUDGB FRYE: Zimmer Area Citizens of Kentucky w uld include -- 21 9 g MRS. REDER: Children outside of Mentor, children in the county, children that attend other school districts, 23 j 3 will it include all of Kentucky? ACE REPORMNG. INC. cpHCthM ATL OMtO .,,c,.n ,,,,,-,,,, n.. -,, ~ - +,, - rc- ,----r-,n,,,,,-e--vv, ,,-n.,,--r--,-, ,,v ~--n. -e
1 JUDGE FRYE: You don't think that your concerns 4823 2 are the same as that of ZAC because of the fact you do not ,O 3 feel that ZAC is representirig the people of Mentor? Is that 4 basically it? 5 MRS. REDER: No. 6 MR. REDER: Not that in particular, not as we 7 are attempting to do here. 9 JUDGE FRYE: What I was wondering and what I 9 was leading up to was whether it might be possible to consoli-10 date your participation with the participation of ZAC. jj MR. REDER: To the degree that they overlap, 12 p ssibly, although I still do not think -- since the ZAC-ZACK j3 contentions involve two states, I do not think there would be ja a great deal in common. 15 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Dennison, do you have any views 16 on this? j7 MR. DENNISON: I am not sure, at least I do not 18 at this moment perceive the potentiality of a conflict. I de recognize particularly on one of the contentions which, again, j9 20 deals with school children and I can certainly sympathize with Mrs. Reder's commentary relative to the evacuation SOP. 21 22 As recently as September 28 or 29 I attended 23 such a meeting at the Kentucky Disaster Service people and O 24 Uj Mr. Picke from CG&E with the Campbell County School people and i ace nr ontma. me. ...e.. n o-.. I
() I at that point nobody knew how any of this was going to occur 4824 2 save and except that there was some suggestion, which was () 3 refused by the Campbell County School people, that they were 4 going to use TANK buses and use such church buses and things 5 of this nature. 6 So to come swiftly to the point, I would think 7 that certainly in the area of schools, that I would in effect absorb the Mentor children from the standpoint of the whip of 8 9 the contention that ZAC is advancing relative to school 10 children. And to that extent, I would have no difficulty in 11 doing whatever this board would please that I do. 12 I might also note for the record there has been O 13 commentary about FEMA and public participation through that. 14 I spent three days on the telephone to FEMA ut their Chicago office to discover that the majority of FEMA has no relationship 15 16 to radiological emergency planning and that you find one fellow L 17 and it seems to be one fellow in the region, which I might add 18 that region is for Ohio to have a -- they have a region for 19 which governs Kentucky. So my remarks are addressed only to 20 region 4. 21 Mr. Gordon Winkler, the best he could suggest () 22 to me if I wished, I could contact their counsel in Washington, 23 a gentleman by the name of Spencer Perry. (]) 24 The upshot of that was that Kentucky had had some ACE REPORTING. INC. CINCINN A TI, OMIO
l (]) I form of hearing county by county. This was all prior to any 4825 2-plans. At first, he told me that the purpose of the public (]) 3 participation was to comment on the plans, but that there was 4 on November 17 at 7:00 p.m. public participation in Ohio at a 5 meeting which would be scheduled near the plant. 6 They had the date and the time. I asked him 7 the place and that he did not know, advising me that I could 8 speak with somebody in the state division of the emergency 9 government agencies for the State of Ohio as to where this 10 place was to be. 11 So that I do questien significantly this concept 12 being advanced by Mr. Conner that there is some sort of public O 13 input, other than these particular procedures here as it pertainn 14 to the plans themselves. 15 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you very much, Mr. Dennison. 16 I particularly appreciate your willingness to help out insofar 17 as the contentions of Mentor, your contentions of ZAC in that 18 they overlap. 19 I have to say,, and I say this without having a 20 chance to give the batter an awful lot of fact, that I am not 21 at all certain what jurisdiction <his board might have with () 22 respect to giving you any relief so f=- a? participation in the 23 formulation of plans that are a county function. ({) 24 That is a matter that I think we will have to ACE REPORTING. INC. CINCthM AT1. Opto .,-..,,--_c
{) address obviously in looking at the contentions. 4826 1 2 I think it will be helpful, and I get the ) impression that you obviously want some way to make some 4 meaningful input into what is going on here. 5 MRS. REDER: I would also like to add at this 6 time that it is not just the City of Mentor, but locally the 7 areas most affected by this plant, the City of Alexandria, the 8 City of California, the City of Mentor have not been involved, 9 that it seems as if everyone has made up their mind CG&E is 10 going to negotiate with the state, who is going to run through 11 its channels of communications down through the county, and we 12 are going to have political figures sitting in the County \\' 13 Judge's executive office determining whether or not to sign 14 letters of agreement, and the people involved have been com-15 pletely ignored. 16 If they have tried to voice these opinions, they 17 have been ignored totally, and I think the real question comes 18 down to whether or not the state, CG&E, and other people can 19 negotiate a way to weigh the rights of the people in this area. 20 I think it is an extremely important question. 21 JUDGE FRYE: Dr. Hooper has a question. () 22 .TUDGE HOOPER: Mr. Reder, either Mr. or Mrs. 23 Reder, to what extent does this document that you furnished us {} 24 represent something, a document that comes from having studied ACE R Ea* SRUNG lNC. cincm ware. owso
I {) the Campbell County Plan? Is that a result of having studied 4827 2 the Campbell County Plan? 3 MRS. REDER: Yes. O 4 JUDGE HOOPER: And the contentions that you have 5 written here are taking that into consideration; is that 6 correct? 7 MR. REDER: Yes, sir. 3 JUDGE HOOPER: For example, when you say that 9 the road is not good, Route 8, I think that is fairly specific, 10 I believe. 11 You can't get much more specific than that unless 12 you have an engineering study, but I say that -- is that road 13 near Mentor and it serves Mentor? 14 MR. REDER: It is near Mentor, and it is a 15 designated major evacuation route which the people of Mentor 16 would use. 37 JUDGE HOOPER: So this contention was written 18 after having read the plan and you find this road is not 39 adequate; is that correct? 20 MR. REDER: Yes. 21 JUDGE HOOPER: The other contentions, for 22 example, 4-B, would be things that you had discussed after 23 having looked at the emergency plan and all of these things? 24 MR. REDER: Yes, and I intend to give a specific J ACE REPORMNG. tNC. CsNCINN A,1, OMIO
j example or so. I didn't think it was necessary or even proper 4828 2 to put in the contentions, but I can and will at this time give G a specific example. 3 4 If you wish, we can look at the plan itself and 5 we can point out other examples. JUDGE HOOPER: In other words, you are perfectly 7 capable of refining these contentions so that they are very 8 highly specific, is that correct, but that you have not done so? 9 10 MR. REDER: Yes, but this doing so -- I thought gj that this type of thing would be a proper subject for the hearing itself rather than for the contentions, and I was as g specific as possible to give the general areas of our concerns, g but if you want a particular example of an underestimation of evacuation times, I would be most happy to give it to you. g JUDGE HOOPER: I see. Thank you. That is fine, p You have answered my question. 18 JUDGE FRYE: I see counsel for the State of Kentucky is here. I do not know whether you are in a position 39 to respond to any Qf the concerns that have been raised or not, g but if you are, we would appreciate hearing from you. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I have not personally 3 23 taken part in any of the meetings that have gone on. I know 24 some of these meetings have been public, and I think ACE R EPORTING. INC. CINCINN Aft. OMeO
(]) 1 Mrs. Reder has mentioned that she has attended many of these 4829 2 meetings, but the question before this particular board is []) 3 whether or not the emergency plans will in fact be workable, 4 and the extent of the involvement by local people is not 5 really an issue that this board has to decide. 6 If there is a hearing on these contentions, 7 I am sure we would be able to produce witnesses that would 8 certainly describe how the plans are formulated for the board's 9 information. 10 I would point out that state law is much differen t from federal law in that there is no counterpart to the l'ederal 11 12 Administrative Procedures Act. O 13 However, there is a public meetings law which 14 requires many meetings to be open to the public, and I under-stand there have been many public meetings concerning these 15 16 topics. 17 I would also believe that FEMA has scheduled la an appellate meeting on the 16th in New Richmond before this exercise takes place in November and also a public critique 19 of the exercise oni he afternoon of the 19th. 20 t 21 I dcn't know exactly where that aeeting is going () 22 to take place, but from what I have heard, I cannot agree that 23 there has been very little opportunity for loc input in the (]) 24 drafting of these plans to this point. Thank you. ACE REPORMNG. INC. conciesgatt omeo
i /"T 1 MRS. REDER: Is Lr. Martin referring to the 4830 \\_/ 2 meeting on the 17th; when is the meeting.date? {~ } 3 MR. MARTIN: Well, I have notes on an appellate 4 meeting on the 16th at 7:00 p.m. in New Richmond, but I don't 5 have a notic.e of that meetir.g. 6 JUDGE FRYE: It seems to me that we have got 7 the city's position. We have got the responses now from the 8 utility and the staff. 9 I do not know whether Mr. Conner wanted to add anything or Mrs. Moore wanted to follow up on anything. 10 11 MR. CONNER: I would like to make about three 12 quick ooints. O 13 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Reder, did you 14 have any other points that you wanted to make before we move on? 15 MR. REDER: I had intended to respond to the 16 rest of Mr Conner's points and also to Mrs. Moore's points, if 17 you wish me to. 18 I would like to add a couple of things anyway. 19 JUDGE FRYE: Sure. 20 MR. REDER: Mr. Conner yesterday and today has 21 repeatedly referred to the unlikely event t' c there will be a () 22 radiological accident, and I refer us all to pages 6 and 7 of 23 New Reg. 0654 which says: "The range of possible selection (J"T 24 for a olanning basis is very large starting with a zero point l ACE REPORMNG. tNC. CINCINN Afl. ON#O +
t' {} of requiring no planning at all because significant off-site 4831 I 2-radiological accident consequences are unlikely to occur: (-} 3 2, planning for the worst possible accident regardless of its v 4 extremely low likelihood." 5 I think tha' statement says a lot. 6 Mrs. Moore repeatedly referred to our lack of 7 specificity, and I would point out to the board that the City of 8 Mentor was not involved in any preconference telephone conferenc e 9 in which these details were discussed or they possibly could 10 have been prepared to be much more specific. 11 I would also like to say that her points about 12 the relevance of the plans for Mentor's participation in the 13 planning and so forth, that the people of Mentor or the city, 14 neither lives in a vacuum; that we'are all part of a larger 15 contention and the people receive their food supplies from the 16 Greater Cincinnati markets. 17 People in Mentor worked in various parts of 18 Greater Cincinnati and that, by the way, includes Northern 19 Kentucky. We all have friends and relatives in the Greater 20 Cincinnati area. We don't live in a vacuum. 21 Daily people come in and go out of Mentor to all .( ) 22 parts of the area, so I think that point lacks a lot of 23 validity. 24 She said that Indiana, our mention of Indiana, ACE REPORMNG. INC. CtNCINNaft. OMtO
} 1 is beyond Mentor's scope in the proceedings. Well, what I have 4832 2 just said refers to that also, that we receive some of our food-3 stuffs from Indiana. It is all part of the Greater Cincinnati [} 4
- market, t
5 Mrs. Moore did not leave us much, I suppose, of 6 the possibility of 4-F, the potassium iodide. Sht says that 7 that would -- she does not leave us much else. 8 4-H, as I have it here, she said there was no 9 relationship between the local fire department and Campbell 10 County or something to that effect, or the people of Mentor or j; something to that effect. This is the Eastern Campbell County 12 Fire Department. ja Maybe I should have spelled it out in those 14 terms, but that local fire department is just a few yards from 15 the city limits of Mentor and serves the people of Mentor as well 16 as the people in the surrounding communities. 17 JUDGE FRYE: The local fire department is not a 18 city function? 19 MR. REDER: No, it is not, but it does serve the 20 city as well as parts outlying the city. So I really can't see 21 how we can separate the interests of the people of Mentor from /' (_) 22 our friends and neighbors in the surrounding communities, 23 although if you wish us to do it, I suppose we could do it. OA, 24 JUDGE FRYE: Mrs. Moore did raise one question ACE REPORMNG. INC. CINCINN Atl. oms 0 - ~ ~
(]) I about whether you obtained your public water supplies from 4833 2 wells or from a river. (} 3 MR. REDER: I made a phone call just a couple 4 of days ago to the Campbell County Water District which is a 5 water transmitter, I suppose you would say. 6 They don't own any treatment facilities, but 7 they purchase their water from the Newport Treatment Facility i 8 and on occasion, times of peak demand, from alco the Covington 9 or Kenton County Water District. 10 And that office assured me that the City of ) 11 Mentor was served by the Campbell County Water District. 12 JUDGE FRYE: I see. O 13 MR. REDER: I do not live in Mentor and I do 14 not have that particular knowledge at the present time, but on 15 the basis of that telephone conversation, I wrote this conten-16 tion. 17 JUDGE FRYE: Are you through or do you have some 18 more? 19 MR. REDER: Well, I wanted to know if you want 20 a specific example *of an underestimation of evacuation times, 21 which I would be perfectly happy to do for you right now. l (} 22 JUDGE FRYE: If vou have got it there. 23 MR. REDER: Well, I do have it in summary anyway. (]} 24 I am speaking of the Stone and Webster report in both the l ACE REPORMNG. INC. CtNCINN AYt. OMic i
Q 1 Campbell County and Kentucky Plans. 4834 b 2 The text says that the evacuation time is a 3 sum of the times of notification, mobilization and travel, so 4 there are three aspects to the total evacuation time. 5 On page 5 -- 7 of that report, it gives the 6 mobilization time for the people within the zero to two-mile 7 radial distance of the plant as 30 minutes or one-half hour. 8 On page 5 -- 7 it says the vehicle speed is 9 assumed to be 25 miles per hour, and on page 4 -- 1, in an 10 effort to be conservative, that the distance or distances used n in these computations would be twice the radial distance to 12 the edge of the EoZ, the ten-mile EPZ. 13 On Table 31, I do not have the page number here, 14 but Table 31 of the Stone Webster report, I am speaking 15 specifically of the zero to two-mile radial distance, and I do 16 not remember the term they uset, but it was areas 1 and 2, 37 whatever, that the notification time is.25 hours or a quarter jg of an hour. 19 The mobilization time is given as.5 hours or 20 ne-half hour so three-quarters of an hour for notification and 21 mobilization. 22 Then for good weather evacuation it gives an l 23 evacuation time ostimate. Now, this would be the total of 24 three parts as one hour. Well, we have already used up 45 i 4CE REPORTING. INC. CINCINN ATO OM40
() I minutes of that hour, and we are left with 15 minutes. 4835 2 Assuming that the person lives two miles from () the plant and has to travel eight miles to reach the edge of 3 4 the ten-mile radial distance, he has eight miles to go. He 5 has eight miles to go then in just the 15 minutes that are 6 left. 7 So 15 minutes traveling eight miles means that 8 he must tr.iol 32 miles per hour just to travel those eight 9 miles. TI_s is in variation with the vehicular speed given 10 of 25 miles per hour. 11 As I said, the study assumes that a distance, 12 traveling distance, is twice the radial distance. We are not OV 13 talking about eight hours. We are talking about 16 hours and 14 doubling the distance, we certainly have to double the rate 15 so this person must go 64 miles per hour in order to reach the 16 edge of his evacuation zone. 17 I think that is a gross error in itself. 18 There are others. 19 JUDGE FRYE: Surelv. Nell, does that end your 20 comments? 21 MR. RED 2R: Unless the board has further ques-22 tions. 23 JUDGE FRYE: I do not think we do at this point. (]) 24 Let's hear from Mr. Conner and Mrs. Moore. l ACE REPORUNG. lNC. CINCINN 411. ONEO I
I ( MRS. REDER: I would like to add something, if I 4836 L 2 may, before Mr. Conner begins. 3 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. ,-bg 4 MRS. REDER: I would like to respond to a remark 5 that Mr. Conner has made on several occasions. 6 He has spoken about the pla7s and that we expect 7 to find some plans set in concrete. Well, that is not the 8 case. 9 Obviously we do want these plans updated, but if 10 you can't take a set of plans and at any one time get them to 11 work, you are never going to have plans that are going to be 12 workable and so we do not want them to be set in concrete, but () '13 we would like to be able to see that they can work at all at
- 4 any one given time, and I don't think that that is unreasonable.
15 I would like to add to the comment that, yes, 16 these contentions do definitely comply or are based on the 17 study of that Campbell County plan. 18 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you. Mr. Conner. 19 MR. CONNER: Sir, I would like to make sure that I l 20 the record correctly states or reflects my statements about 21 participation by Mentor, because Mr. Reder did not' understand j fx 22 me correctly, and I may have not said it correctly. ? L) 23 I did not say that individuals or localities 24 cannot participate in NRC proceedings. I said the mistake of b ACE REPORMNG. INC. CINCINNaf t OMIO l
4 f 1 their contention was that they assumed that the state and O 4837 a 2 county had to involve them in the preparation of the state and 3 county plans. So obviously-if a legitimate point was raised 4 5 as to the validity of those plans by anybody, Mentor or other-wise, of course, they could be heard by this board. 6 7 I just wanted to make sure that is clear on the i record. 8 9 Another point that, although we have talked about it at some length over the last two days, may not be 10 clear to the Reders that we have to know the evidence that we jj are required to present if there is to be a hearing, and we do 12 O ,3 not come eo ehe heerine end heer etteterine eeneratie1es end 14 maybe specific examples as a presentation of evidence. 15 If they want to argue that Route 8 has fallen into 16 the Ohio River and nobody is ever going to fix it, fine. We can i 17 meet that kind of allegation, but just generalities that Route 8 is not any good does not help anybody, including this board to 18 decide the issue and that leads me finally to what, your Honor, 9 20 ad suggested, and perhaps it is a bit premature, but we would g urge consolidation to the maximum extent possible of any of l these contentions in order to get us moving forward and to g 23 prevent the situation that has olagued this case in the past f r und-robin cross-examination going on for days and days 24 ACE REPORTING. f MC. CINCINN ATL ONIO
() I and days. '4838 2 But that is, as I say,.perhaps a bit premature. i '(]) 3 The other thing I wanted to add and Mr.. Martin has pretty well I 4 covered it, the fact that FEMA does in fact have public meetings. 5 The thing I was referring to particularly was 6 in the June 24, 1980 Federal Register, Volume 45, page 42341 7 which was the FEMA review and approval of the state and local a radiological emergency plans and preparedness referring 9 specifically to Section 350.10. 10 These are still proposed plans, but I understand 11 FEMA is folicwing theu. 12 JUDGE FRYE: Mrs. Moore.- 0 13 MRS. MOORE: Your Honor, I only have cne small 14 point to make, and it is a point of clarification because I 15 think Mr. Reder did not quite understand what I said with 16 regard to the fire department. 17 What I said is that the Reders have not 18 demonstrated that this fire department has any relationship to l 19 l emergency planning, not that it had no relationship to Mentor, 20 but that it had noirelationship to emergency planning. i 2T I just wanted to clarify the record ca that ' (]f 22 . point. That is all. Everyone has covered my arguments already. 23 There is no sense to repeat them. (}. 24 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you. Let me inquire whether 4 ACE REPORMNG. tNC. Cf MCINN ATL OmO j n., .--.-,,n.,. r - r,
() there would be any possiblity for the applicant and the staff 4839 I 2 and the Reders to go over these contentions and see what you (~') 3 can come up with? %J 4 MR. REDER: Yes, we would welcome such a chance, 5 and if such a meeting or series of meetings had occurred prior 6 to this conference, perhaps we could have ironed out some of 7 the difficulties. 8 For instance, and this is rather silly, but 9 let's do it anyway. Mr. Conner said that the plans of cross-10 reference was there. 11 Well, I am sorry. I have here the Kentucky Plan, 12 the Campbell County Plan, and I do not see any cross-reference. O 13 JUDGE FRYE: That is why I am going the way I 14 am going. It is the sort of thing that might be settled very j l i 15 quickly if you all could sit down. 16 MR. REDER: I agree. 17 MR. CONNER: Your Honor, we, of course, will l 18 follow your suggestion but many of these I am not sure could be 19 responded to by the staff or the applicant since they really 20 relate to the county's situation and not knowing what they have 21 in mind, I am not at all sure that we would be able to respond (~JD 22 to a given situatior,. i ~ l 23 Well, they referred to it as an SOP for the 24 school evacuation detail which is supposed to be an adjunct (} l ACE R EPORDNG. lNC. CsNCINN ATO. OMIO
I {) to the plan, although not published with it. 4340 2 Our understanding is it is in the last stage 3 of preparation but, here again, I am not sure we are in the 4 position to respond to a given question from the Reders on that 5 point. 6 If they would write us a letter with the 7 specific points they have in mind, I think,we can find the 8 answers, if we do not know, more quickly than sitting down 9 and listening generally as a first step. That could be the 10 second step. 11 JUDGE FRYE: Mrs. Moore. 12 MRS. MOORE: Well, your Honor, we have made our 13 position very clear, but we would be willing, if the board thinks it would be in fact fruitful, to sit down with the 14 15 Reders and meet with them. 16 We kind of would prefer at first to find out 17 what questions they have, as Mr. Conner has suggested, in perhapd 18 a letter. Then if a meeting aopears necessary, then we could do 19 that, but, of course, the Staff would be very willing to follow 20 the board's suggestion. 21 JUDGE HOOPER: It seems to me that in other pro- ) ceedings where we have had a party in without counsel that the 22 23 Staff has been cooperative and has been able to help them frame (g 24 contentions so they are in litigation. u.) Act RtpCRnNG. tNC. CINCamasaft, OM80 l
( rN 1 In other proceedings this has been the case. 4841 O 2 It seems to me that you could be somewhat helpful to this party 3 (-) too. I think many of the things that you went over could be v 4 thrashed out and made specific enough to be pursued in litiga-5 tion. 6 A party without counsel is, I think, a ship that 7 needs to be helped in the proceedings. 8 MR. BARTH: Sir, I would like to address this as 9 the lead counsel in this case. The matter of assisting 10 intervenors has come up before. 11 JUDGE FRYE: Let me say: We are not looking 12 for intervenor assistance. What we are looking for is a nego-( 13 tiated settlement of contentions. 14 MR. BARTH: That came up before the Senate 15 recently in Clinton. I personally will not, as a matter of pro-fessional ethics, assist someone in the framing of a prosecution 16 17 of tht government. 18 MRS. REDER: Would you repeat it, please? 19 MR. BARTH: We have a very difficult ethical 20 problem in that I cannot provide legal advice or assistance to 21 a party who is engaged in conflict with the law. Insofar as these people want to know what these regulations say, we give 22 22 them the regulations, how to go through procedures. r-24 (>g We tell them that. That is no problem. B CC REPORDNG. tNC. cfMCINNaft ONeo
.l } 1 Mrs. Moore and I will certainly do this in this regard, but to 4842 2 help them go frame contentipps or write contentions, from my () 3 point of view, I think maybe it is questionable activity on 4 my part. i 5 JUDGE FRYE: I want to make it clear that we 6 are not asking you to engage in any questionable activity. 7 We are just trying to find some way in which f we might reach a conclusion of this matter more quickly. 8 9 Mr. Conner. 10 MR. CONNER: For the record, your Honor, noting { 11 the twist that was taken here, which I did not understand'you i i 12 to say initially, it is not the responsibility of the applicant O 13 to help create contentions for anybody that is contrary to our 14 interests, and we certainly would object to the Staff creating 15 issues just to give somebody something to litigate in the pro-16 ceeding. 17 To the contrary, we believe it is the responsi-bility of the NRC to get these matters through as quickly as i 18 39 possible and not to create false issues simply for the purpose 20 of having a hearing'. 21 I am afraid that the Reders might misunderstand what () 22 you said on the record a minute ago as having that effect. 23 That is why I believe it would be simpler if ! () 24 somebody who shares their philosophy and who has the legal Act REPORMNG. tNC CINCINN Aff. Osete ~.-,..-..n,, -...-,,..n.,_ ,--,,.,,,.c., .,.r.,
1 training with the concept of the bill of particulars here or 4843 specific cases such as Mr. Dennison as a party to the proceeding 2 might be a better advisor to them than we could ethically or 3 4 possibly be. 5 JUDGE FRYE: Well, as I say, I was not asking 6 for either of you to advise them. They have come up with a 7 list of contentions and -- 3 MRS. REDER: It should be pointed out -- 9 JUDGE FRYE: These matters might be settled very 10 easily if you all could sit down and talk together and to the 11 extent that they might not be settled, I think everyone would 12 know what was in issue. (} 13 MR. REDEn: Sir, we have read several times through New Reg.~0654 and all its parts and portions of 10 CFR, 14 15 whatever, that we think might apply, and we have placed a lot 16 of confidence in what the NRC is saying in these documents, that the local governments have to play a part in the plans from. 17 18 beginning to end. 19 We have taken the attitude from the beginning 20 also that it is notithe responsibility of the City of Mentor to 21 initiate any action. That is the respons.bility of either the 22 applicant or of the state government or somebody, some other ~ 23 government, to come to us, and we have made or perhaps showed very little initially along those lines because we placed full 24 ACE REPORUNO. INC. CleeCINN ATI. ONeo I l
cr ( I e t ({} fakthinthisdocument. I 4844 4 '2 ~.1' I think any person who reads this, maybe an 3 (]} attorney would read it and get lots of different things out of 1 it than we do, but I think we are reasonably intelligent people M S and reasonably experienced people and we can read the English n 6 language as most people, and I think we are getting an entirely '7 different interpretation of this. ,s. j 3 That is the basis, I think, for moat of our f 9 contentions. 4 4~- 10 JUDGE FnYE: Mrs. Reder, 11 MRS. F2 DER: If it is just a matter of making i 12 these contentions more specific, we find no problem there becaus e 13} these contentions were drawn up by a list of inadequacies and 14 l problems that we foresaw with the plans. , 15 Now, we can restate the contentions. That is id - no p oblem. I 17 We worded them the way that they are worded i ( i 18 g because we thought that,,was the way they were sunoosed to be. 19 Had we received sc~a '.nstruction or some information or had been 20 included in any way' in those preconference or prehearing con-
- 21 ference conferences, possibly we would have known that we
(} 22 should be very detailed and state specifically this item, that 23 item, and the other. [' 24 If it is a matter of just rewriting them, we ACE REPORDNG. INC. Cd4CtNN AT9. ONs0 4
I _{ } have no objection to that. 4845 2 MR. REDER: And in addition, we would be very 3 pleased to sit down with the DES people from the State of 4 Kentucky and Campbell County and go over these documents page 5 by page in an effort to resolve these contentions-6 We would welcome such an opportunity, but we 7 have never had such an opportunity. 8 JUDGE FRYE: Let uF confer for a moment, please. 9 (Discussion held off the record.) 10 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. and Mrs. Reder, if you would, 11 let me say initially that we are giving some fairly serious 12 thought to the possibility of appointing Mr. Dennison as lead 13 counsel as to this off-site emergency planning matter repre-14 senting ZAC as he does, and since we have already establiched 15 that there is at least some overlap between ZAC's contentions 16 and your contentions, we would like for you to confer with 17 Mr. Dennison as to any revisions that you feel are necessary 18 hora and give us a revised set of contentions on the same 19 schedule that we have established for the others, the 12th, if 20 I am not mistaken.* 21 MR. REDER: I am sorry, I did not hear your 22 [} last sentence. 23 JUDGE FRYE: It would be the 12th of Novembar, ('T 24 if I am not -is taken. j \\J f ACE REPORTING. lHC. CINCus8s ATI. O*eto t
~ (]) 1 MR. REDER: You are objecting to our lack of 4846 2 specifics 1 () .3 JUDGE FRYE: No, if you do not want to revise 4 them, we will rule on them as they are. 5 MR. REDER: With respect to Mr. Dennison as to the effectiveness of the contcstions and the proper form, is 6 7 that your advice? 8 JUDGE FRYE: I arc not giving advice. 9 MR. REDER: Is that your order? 10 JUDGE FRYE: I am rat making an order just yet. 11 MR. REDER: Any suggescions? 12 JUDGE FRYE: O Let's go back over this again. Let me say initially that we think you have got some good con-13 14 tentions here, if that relieves your nind somewhat. 15 We think that they can be sharpened up. We 16 thina that they can be made better, and I am asking you to go through that effort of trying to make them better, make them 17 better for the purposes of the hearing coming up. 18 19 Mow, if you want to do that, it is up to you to 20 do it. Otherwise, se will take them as they are and we will 21 is ine _ andorder rulings on them. () 22 MR. REDER: When you say make them better, you 23 are implying that they are deficient in some me and you (]) 24 have not told us -- ACE REPORMNG fM* CINCINN Afl. OMIO
{'} I JUDGE FRYE: You have got the comments of the 4847 2 other parties. 3 ) MR. REDER: You are agreeing with them? 4 JUDGE FRYE: No, sir, I am not agreeing with any-5 one at this point. I am not ruling on these contentions at 6 this point, and I am not in a position to give you or any other 7 party advice on how you should try your case. 8 MR. REDER: Then I do not really understand 9 'what you are saying. 10 JUDGE FRYE: Well, it seems to me that it would 11 be advisable perhaps, perhaps not -- It is a decision you are 12 going to have to make -- if you sharpened up the contentions O \\# 13 to the extent that you feel you can do so in light of the 14 comments that have been made by the other parties. 15 If you want to do that, that is fine. 16 MR. REDER: Thank you, sir. 17 MRS. REDER: I do have one question: You said 1 18 something about Mr. Dennison possibly being the lead intervenor, 19 that you were considering that. 20 My o'nly concern.s that if Mentor has a conten-21 tion particularly dealing with notification or warning to school (~)% 22 children, prior notification so that they can be evacuated before 23 the roads become congested, if that cot.cention does not parallel (} ZAC's contention, are they both going to be considered? 24 ACE REPORMNG. tNC. CINCihas eT'. O'*'O ~, _ _. _
1 ) JUDGE FRYE: We cannot pass on that until we have 4848 2 got a specific contention. You see, before we can rule on 3 whether we should appoint a lead intervenor, we are going to 4 have to have the specific contentions before us. 5 Mr. Dennison is going to be filing his in two 6 ueeks. I assume that you will be revising these in +.he same time period, and then we will address that question. 7 8 MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, I do have one ques-9 tion if I may. 10 JUDGE FRYE: Sure. 11 MR. DENNISON: As to getting a better handle on it myself as to.when I will, I recognize initially it would be 12 () 13 from the same point of making suggestions and giving some advica 14 to Mr. and Mrs. Reder as to the manner in which these contention s 1 15 could be more specific. 16 Now, do you wish me to go a sten further and to 17 participate in unison with them as draftsman? The reason I 18 phrase this question is from the standpoint of November 12. I l 19 I am going to have some time consumption from the standpoint of my own contentions, and then to also be carrying a 20 21 substantial labor with the Reders on their contentions, I would i 22 find it a bit difficult within the November 12 period to have 23 both of them accommodated by then if my participation was to l 24 be to that degree. ACE REPORMNG. INC. etNclNNatt. ONto
- a. -
1 JUDGE FRYE: I was really trying to leave your 4849 2 degree of participation between you and the Reders. I cer-3 tainly want to hold to the November 12 date to the extent that d 4 we possibly can. 5 So I think that it would -- ;. think your partici-pr. tion obviously is going to be governed to a certain extent on 6 7 the amount of time that you have available within that time a frame. 9 MR. REDER: I would like to point out that if this participation of Mr. Dennison in this relationship any way 10 11 might pose an imposition on him and the City of Montor has no 12 funds to consult another -- 13 JUDGE FRYE: That is the other reason I did not 14 want to, you know, indicate or dictate that this happen, but 15 you are both parties, and Mr. Dennison is representing one 16 party and you are representing another. 17 I thinh you should confer because your interests 18 do seem to overlap to some extent. 39 Now, if you and Mr. Dennison can come to some 20 agreement to enable,.him to represent you, fine, but that has 21 got to be worked out between you and Mr. Dennison. 22 MR. REDER: We won't ask Mr. Dennison to represent We have no other access for legal counsel that requires 23 us. 24 money. ACE Ri[PORDNG. INC. C84 CON 4AN. OMIO
n-I (]) MR. CONNER: Mr. Chairman, may I make a sugges-4850 2 tion? 3 () JUDGE FRYE: Surely. 4 MR. CONNER: Given all of this colloquy and S recognizing, I think, the applicant's and Staff's and board's 6 desire at leas t to get this hearing moving forward, let me 7 suggest here a somewhat radical approach. 8 May I suggest the board convene a special hearing 9 sometime in the re latively near future with perhaps one member 10 of the board presiding and allow the City of Mentor to come in 11 and say whatever it wants to on the record, but then we will 12 get it on the record. O 13 Then they vl be donc and then the hearing, 14 which I hope will start on December 14, we will provide evidence 15 for it to rcspond to whatever points they make, but the fact of 16 the matter is we do not know what evidence we are required to 4 17 meet from what they have said and I will bet a cookie that on 16 November 12 we won't know much nore. 19 So perhaps the simple way to solve this would 20 be to create a spec'ial hearing, let them put in their testimony, 21 whatever it is, and then we will provide evidence to respond to (]} 22 whatever evidence they deduce. 23 JUDGE FRYE: I think you are thinking of almost () a special master situation? 24 l acs naronnNG,1NC. CINC6MN ATO. ONIO l
r~T 1 MR. CONNER: Yes, exactly. 4851 b 2 JUDGE FRYE: Let's see -- 3 MR. CONNER: Which ruler. now seem to anticipate. 4 MR. REDER: I do not have-a professional repre-5 sentation to defend as Mr. Fisse, but I am not going to bet a 6 cookie with Mr. Conner, but there is a slight degree of 7 resentment on my part as to my capabilities to write an 8 English sentence or to be reasonably specific on things as 9 long as I know what you are asking for. There is some slight 10 resentment there. 11 I would ask you to caution him for the future. 12 JUDGE FRYE: Let me pass that and say that I b) s-13 hope you and Mr. Conner can also perhaps negotiate somewhat la as to the contentions that you have got in this two-week period 15 or representatives of the company. 16 MR. REDER: Would CG&E be e:tpected to initiate 17 such correspondence? 18 JUDGE FRYE: Well, Mr. Conner, are you still in a 19 mood where you could negotiate? 20 MR.iCONNER: Sir, I am still back to the point -- 21 JUDGE FRYE: You want some specifics. {} 22 MR. CONNER: I don't know. I used an example. 23 I haven't the foggiest idea whether it is any good or not. ' -) Something is wrona with Route 8. The Cincinnati Gas & Electric 24 ACE REPORTING. INC. CINCINN ATI. ONGO
1 (]) Company does not handle the highways in Kentucky obviously, but 4852 I 2 if he wants to know about Route 8, we will try to find the (]} 3 answer. 4 But I do not think sitting down before we have 5 -some laundry list, specific laundry list, of what we are supposed 6 to meet, it would do that much good. 7 We will sit in a meeting for a day and hear 8 what we have heard today which, from their standpoint, are 9 legitimate complaints, but it won't help to determine what 10 evidence needs to be produced in the hearing. 11 So if they would give us a list of things, we l 12 would certainly try to respond to them as questions, certainly i s 13 not to frame contentions. 14 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Reder. 15 MR. REDER: I think a lot of these difficulties 16 could have been forestalled if he had done as I had suggested 17 before. The state and county officials have met with the city 18 in formulating its plan, but in the absence of that, I had also 19 suggested before that state and county officials sit down with 20 the City of Mentor and go through the proposed plans here page 21 by page if necessary, so that we can come to some agreement and (]) 22 maybe all of those contentions can be withdrawn. 23 I hope so anyway. Can I suggest that the board [} direct other advice or whatever the county and state to do that 24 ACE MEPORMNG. INC. CINCINN ATI OMt0 -c. ,.,~,-,--,--,-ne- -,e, .--,,-e,
(]) 1 or is that outside your authority? 4853 2 JUDGE FRYE: I think it is really outside our (]~ 3 authority. 4 MR. REDER: Well, there is where it all is. 5 JUDGE FRYE: What we have is your contentions 6 in respect to the emergency plan, and that is what we intend 7 to -- 8 MR. REDER: Wo"ld they be willing to do it on 9 their own initiative? Could Mr. Martin perhaps enlighten us 10 on that, on the state's position and meeting with the City of 11 Mentor? 12 JUDGE FRYE: I think he earlier addressed the O 13 point in general, but I think that this is something perhaps 14 you might want to take up with Mr. Martin while he is here 15 after we adjourn. 16 Is there any other business before we adjourn? 17 MR. BARTH: One other matter, your lionor, if I 18 may. The matter of discovery has been mentioned very early 19 yesterday by Mr. Conner. 20 I would like the comment on discovery. The Staff 21 moves that the licensing board issue an order precluding all (]) 22 discovery after Monday, November 30, except with permission of 23 the board for good cause shown. (]) 24 This would include requests for depositions ACE REPORDNG. INC. CINCINN Aft. ON60
({} 1 noticed, depositions upon written interrogatories, requests 4854 2 for production and inspection of documents. (]} 3 I have previously discussed this with counsel 4 for ZAC and to the degree that the specificity that he will 5 produce in his contentions and the specificity which may or 6 may not be produced by Mentor, if they so desire, would go a 7 great deal towards precluding any kind of discovery. 8 I make it very clear that the Staff will want to 9 know the basis for a contention, what kind of written materials, 10 and what kind of people and expertise sponsor the contention 11 that there is an invalidity in the plans. 12 Discovery on our part after November 12 will be O 13 limited to this kind of information to enable us to go to 14 trial, but I do think that if the intervenors also have a full 15 right and an opportunity to make discovery en matters that 16 they need information, at the same time we uust get this going, 17 and I think it would be proper for the board to preclude all 18 discovery after November 30 except with the board's permission 19 for good cause shown. Thank you, your Honor. 20 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Conner, do you want to respond? 21 MR. CONNER: Mr. Chairman, it has been our view (]) 22 that discovery has been closed de facto for some time for most 23 of the evidence in the ret ed. /~T 24 V We think we should certainly not -- November 30 ACE REPORMNG. INC. CINCINas aft. 08800 1
{) 1 simply provides another month to get into things that have been 4855 2 around for five years. 3 Specifically since we have indicated that we 4 would file a motion for summary disposition on Fankhauser 5 Contention 2 and subparts thereof, we think that should not 6 be affected by the rule and, in other words, so we can make our motion promptly as we previously indicated. 8 JUDGE FRYE: It is understcod that you are going 9 to make that motion. o MR. CONNER: While I am here, I would also mentio n 11 the point at the hr.aring, the evidentiary hearing, and I would 12 again go back to the board's date of Cecember 14, and I think 13 that in addition to the reasons I mentioned yesterday for getting ja started and then closing the record later after uhe FEMA record 15 and so forth, that it beccmes more and more likely that we 16 will have people, participants or intervenors asking questions in the hearings, that absent some indication of the subject in 17 ja advance, the witnesses probably won't know the answer. 19 I mean, you know, there is no stop sign at tha 20 intersection of Route 8 and something -- we do not know how 21 to meet the evidence if we don't know what it is. If we know () 22 what it is, we will have a witness one way or the other, but I hnve a feeling that we are going to have several things like g O( the witness who is present does not know, we will suoply the 24 i I l .cr.wonn~. mc. CINC NNAft. ONIO (
(]) I answur later. I think this is another reason for starcing on 4856 2 or about December 14 with the understanding that in (arly 1 (} 3 February there will be a reconvened hearing to clean up loose 4 ends and receive the FEMA testimony. 5 JUDGE FRYE: Ne will certainly keep that in mind. 6 When we have got the contentions, I think we will be in a better 7 position to judge when we can actually start the hearing. 8 Mr. Dennison do you want to respond to 9 Mr. Barth's motion in regard to discovery? 10 MR. DENNISON: Not specificaly to the discovery 11 aspect by way of date. 12 To me, that seeme; reasonable as a cut-off time O* 13 and that there o 2ght to be some cut-off time established and 14 particularly u.ider the conditions that Mr. Barth has presented. 15 The question that I have is when ZAC was admitted, 16 it was stated that some of the contentions would be reassessed 17 or weighed after discovery, as was indicated yesterday, and I 18 do not want to belabor the point. 19 It has just been this October that ZAC has had 20 some sort of plan for off-site emergency prepared..ess which it 21 could actually inspect. Therefore, no discovery was promulgated ! (]) 22 by ZAC up to today. 23 The plans, the persons who are involved in those (]} 24 plans, that sort of. thing, it is generally known to ZAC, and I i ACE REPORMNG. INC. CINCINN ATB. OMoo
~ {]) 1 do not perceive any great deal of discovery in the future. 4857 2 However,1 do not want to get caught betwixt {} 3 and between a situation because I really do not understand this 4 order portion of July 2, 1980 dealing with this caveat of 5 discovery. 6 Yesterday it was alluedd to counsel for the applicant that since ZAC had not engaged in discovery, 7 8 therefore, ZAC's contention should be dismissed. 9 Am I given to believe that that order, par-10 ticularly with this conference, is still affected relative to the issue of whether or not some discovery has to be engaged in 11 12 in order to make legitimate, as it were, some of ZAC's intentions? 13 This was the sense I was getting of Mr. Conner's la commentary yesterday. It was my interpretation of the July 2, 15 1980 order that this was discovery as may be necessary for 16 either party to have some appreciation of the essence of the 17 contention. 18 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, my understanding of the order 19 is the same. As I understood Mr. Conner, he was saying in 20 essence that a lack of discovery indicates a lack of desire to 21 move forward with the contention, as much as anything, and that () 22 one of the things, as you know, we wanted to identify were such 23 contentions that the intervenors may no longer wish to proceed ({} 24 on. ACE REPORMNG. INC. CINCINN Aft. OM80
(} I Am I correct, Mr. Conne.*? 4858 2 MR. CONNER: Yes, sir. I believe that the earlier (} 3 board's order just referred to meant what it said and that absent proper following of discovery by ZAC to validate, 4 5 refine, and state their contentions specifically as required 6 by the rules would mean that they failed. 7 That was my reading of that order, and that is 8 the basis for my motion. 9 Secondly, ZAC's failure to prosecute its oosition 10 I think, is also a basis for dismissal and, of course, we move 11 to dismiss on those and other grounds as to specificity. But 12 let us deal with what comes in on the 12th. /~'T 13 JUDGE FRYE: All right. 14 MR. DENNISON: So that I fully understand the 15 intent of Mr. Conner here, I am having a little bit of difficulty 16 with some -- I have been prepared to present cvidence at a hearing 17 from t*e standpoint of at least a sufficient amount to make
- 18 what we might call prima facia cases.
19 Of course, that has been building since the con-20 tentions were advanced. Thus, I have a different reading from 21 Mr. Conner because I do not know how I can discover anything () 22 from Cincinnati Gas & Electric save and except their employee 23 Stone and Webster. (} 24 As the State of Ohio is not a party and neither - =. ACE REPORUNG. iNC. CINCthM ATI. ON60 s
{,: : 1 is the County of caupbell, Kenton or Bracken for me to 4859 2 address any type of discovery for the preparatior. of such plans (] 3 leaving only two members of seven plans, and that would be the 4 Commonwealth of Kentucky and Clermont County. 5 I find it a little bit offensive to make the 6 suggestion that one has been deletory or has failed to prosecute 7 no matter how I believe. 8 The tongue may drop that forth, but nonetheless 9 the circumstances, I felt contentions as written put the 10 applicant on notice and put the Staff on notice of the area 11 that one was going at least insofar as state and federal notice i 12 pleading suffices. O 13 Never yet had anybody suggested that when you y file a pleading that Joe Doe negligently ran into Betsy Smith 15 and broke her leg and she sustained out-of-pocket damages of 16 $1300, you have to go back and be more specific than that. j7 Discovery generally undertakes to make it more 18 Specific, and that would be discovery coming from staff upon me 39 and from the applicant upon me. 20 Mowi what I am trying to understand is this 21 strange obligation that I was to discover things which I may l hcive no interest in discovering, but if I don't, I am being 22 l 23 penali::cd. (] 24 I think this goes to perhaps the heart of this V ACE REPORTING. INC. CiceCuenaf t. Oseto L
(]) entire matter. I have sat here for about six days of hearings 4860 I 2 thus far. Mr. Conner constantly talks about how we itave to keep (~ 3 V) going, but we are constantly nit-picking over issucs rather than 4 getting to the merits of the contentions before this board. JUDGE FRYE: The board does not read its pre-vious discovery order as requiring or obligating a party to 6 7 engage in discovery if it does not choose to do so. 8 MR. DENNISON: I thank you for the clarificacion. 9 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, may I make one small 10 additional remark, sir? 11 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. 12 MR. BARTH: I have discussed the matter of dis-0 13 covery with FEMA and, as counsel points out, there are some 14 problems involved there. They are not a party, and the only 15 way that ZAC could discover these people actually is by deposi-tion or by subpoenaing documents to appear at trial, and that 16 17 is not discovery anyway. 18 Spence W. Perry, who is the Acting Assistant 19 General Counsel of FEMA has informed me that within the con-straints of their p'ersonnel, their time and their ability to 20 do so, that they will entertain on a voluntary basis interroga-21 t(]) 22 tories on contentions which have been admitted in this 23 proceeding. (} 24 If the intervenors have interrogatories that ACE R EPORMNG. INC. CINCINNATI ONa0 - m.. . -.. -.., _ ~, -r,
0' r 1 they wish to propose to FEMA, they should send them to Spence 4861 2 W. Perry, Acting Assistant General Counsel, Federal Energy i 3 Management Agency, 500 C Street, Southwest, Washington, D. C., {} 20427, but I strongly emphasize this is a voluntary offer by 4 5 FEMA. I cannot make them perform or does thislicensing 6 board or nw agency have jurisdiction to make them perform, but 7 within everything they can with their personnel, they will 3 9 provide answers to what they consider legitimate questions 10 that this licensing board requests of them. 33 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Woliver, do you want to respond? 12 MR. WOLIVER: I would not have any more to add j3 to that other than what has been said. i We would, if necessary, promulgate interroga-y tories and also follow the suggestion that Mr. Perry, I believe 15 16 his name is, makes. g7 JUDGE FRYE: Fine. Mr. and Mrs. Reder, this is in regard now to the discovery motion that Mr. Barth made 18 39 essentially -- 20 MR.iREDER: I do not think we understand much 21 f this legal talk. 22 MRS. REDER: I have one question: The standard cperating procedures are not written contrary to what 23 24 Mr. Conner has stated. Does that discovery include the use of (-)T ACE REPortNG. lNC. camceNN ATL OM'O - - -~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i' ! ():: I getting information that is used for the standard operating '4862 2 procedure by that?. - (]) 3 JUDGE FRYE: Discovery basically is aimed at 4 finding out what your opponent's case is about. 5 Mr. Fisse? j 6 MR. FISSE: I have no comment. 7 JUDGE FRYE: I think that covers everyone. Any B other business before we adjourn? i 9 MR. CONNER: Note one housekeeping detail. l I { 10 Since we last offered the application in this proceeding, there f 11 have been various amendments filed which have been served upon i i 12 the board and the parties which constitutes our evidence in () 13 this proceeding, and these amendments have all been-submitted. 14 If the board wishes, we could move that these 4 15 amendments will be received at this time, or wait until the 1 j 16 beginning of the evidentiary hearing. I'7 JUDGE FRYE: Let's wait for the evidentiary 18 hearing on that. a i 19 MR. CONNER: Okay. 20 MR.'DENNISON: Does the board mean that it is 4 j 21 adjourning for lunch or final adjournment of this prehearing O2 coarereac 2 { 23 JUDGE FRYE: Adjournment of this prehearing 1 () 24 conference. ACE REPORTdNG, INC. CINCINN ATt. OM00 -4, _ ...i.,,'...,.._._.. ,,-~_.._,,.,._,..-..-e-.. v._m....__,-.<-s, ,w c,-.._,.-,-,.,- r
1 MR. DENNISON:.The one thing that'I am still 4863 (} 2 unclear on concerning the future hearing dates, will the board 3 [ do.this by subsequent letter, order? What I en trying-to find 4 out is: Can I anticipate being back here December 14? 5 JUDGE FRYE: No, I do not-think so at this point, 6 and we will after we get the contentions, I think, have'to take 7 a good look at what contentions can go to hearing prior to the 8 availability of the FEMA reports, and in the absence of any 9 contentions that could go to hearing prior to the FE.WL reports, 10 it looks like it would be the first week in February which 11 would be the earliest. I 12 But as I say, until we see the contentions,~I do 13 not think you are in a position to think about the specific 14 date. 15 If you would like'to get started earlier than i 16 the first of February if possible, we will nave to see what the 17 ontentions are whether we are able to do that. I would think 18 that irobably -- wel'., we will give you as much advance notice 19 as wa can possibly do. 1 20 MF. DENNISON: Then I had addressed remarks 4 21 yesterday to the particular conflict t. sat I have publicly about i j } 22 the first of February to approximately the 23rd or-so. 23 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, you did. I think it was on a [} Wednesday or a Thursday that your trial began in the second week 24 ACE REPORMNG. tN couctuwaft omeo A
'l (} 1 of February? 4864 2 MR. DENNISCN: It commences on the lith and [} 3 simply because of the severity of the charges and the nature of 4 that litigation, I would like to reserve some days in advance of S the lith so that I do not go immediately from one to the other. 6 JUDGE FRYE: Sure. 7 MR. WOLIVER: One matter on that discovery. 8 I assume that the motion and any order concerning the November 4 9 30 cut-off date is predicated upon the assumption that the 10 hearings are going to start sometime presumably late winter jj and, again, it is obviously possible that there could be some 6 12 delay for whatever reason or another that could put the hearings 13 back several months or until whenever. 14 If that would occur, certainly we would want 15 discovery to remain open. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we, of course, will take into j7 account any development that might occur, that might affect that 18 and also, as I understand Mr. Barth's motion, 'cha t he is not 19 calling for an absolute cut-off of discovery. 20 He is saying that after November 30 any further gi discovery would have to be with specific permission of the () 22-board. 23 MR. CONNER: Mr. Chairman, n.ay I ask that you [" 24 do issue a prehearing conference order? I feel a lack of ACE REPOAUNG. lNC. CeNCINNATI. ONeo
1 clarity in what I think is what the record says. 4865 2 JUDGE FRYE: We fully intend to issue one as ? quickly as we can. In fact, we may well end up issuing two, 4 one to ecme out pending the submission of the contentions and 5 the second one to cover the contentions. 6 Anything else? 7 (No response.) 8 We stand adjourned. Thank you very much. 9 10 (The hearing was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.) 31 12 O, 1 l i ) I4 15 16 i 17 18 4 19 i 20 21 i O" 23 24 - l 4 ACE REPORTING, INC. CINCtNN Aft, ONIO l [
V 1 CERTIPICATE _/' 2 State of Ohio County of Hamilton : SS 3 I, Patty Artrip, the undersigned, a court 4 reporter for the Ctate of Ohio, do hereby certitr at the time 5 and place stated herein, I recorded in stenotypy and thereafter 6 transcribed into typewriting the within pages and that the 7 ) foregoing is a true, complete and accurate report of my said 9 stenotypy notes. 9 .' jg. ,> ~ s 10 i f } : j,, h i / ?> ~' 12 My commission expir'esi,T i > f Pditv L.-Artr$p-RPR ~ July 18, 1982 Notary Public - State of Ohio 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 T 22 23 24 ACE R EPORTING,1NC. CBMCWNATI,OMeO
+ .O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the -Q Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f in the matter of:. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Et Al., and W.!!. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant
- Date of Proceeding:
October 30, 1981 i Docket flumber: 50-358-OL Place of Proceeding: Cincinnati, Ohio were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof t'7r the file of the Commission., Patty L. Artrip Official Reporter (Typed) 'h Patty L. Artrip Official Reporter (Signature) 9 O -}}